M/S. GURU KRIPA AGRO FOODS,HARYANA vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

55A r.w. section 142A of the Income Tax Act, and as such the addition of Rs. 46,74,280/- on account of capital gain

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 45 to 55A concerning capital gains of the IT Act. It was also contended by the A’ that under

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the order of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Adarsh Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT in ITA No. 66/LKW/2014 wherein vide order dated 23.03.2014, it was held that where the assessee had submitted the valuation report of the registered valuer and the matter was not referred by the Assessing Officer

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the order of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Adarsh Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT in ITA No. 66/LKW/2014 wherein vide order dated 23.03.2014, it was held that where the assessee had submitted the valuation report of the registered valuer and the matter was not referred by the Assessing Officer

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the order of the ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Adarsh Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT in ITA No. 66/LKW/2014 wherein vide order dated 23.03.2014, it was held that where the assessee had submitted the valuation report of the registered valuer and the matter was not referred by the Assessing Officer

NARENDRA KUMAR GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvpg8013G Assessee By : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

Section 55A]: In a case where the capital asset became the property of the tax payer (or of the previous owner) before 1st April, 1981, the tax payer has the option of substituting the cost of acquisition with the fair market value of the asset as on 1st April, 1981. Higher the fair market value adopted by the tax payer

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHWANI KUMAR MALIK, MEERUT

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gains, reference, if any, has necessary to be made u/s 55A of the Act. A perusal of the said section

NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAQL CIRCLE-15, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

capital gain. (ii) the audit report for the proprietary business shows him as a trader of “Agarbatties”, “Papads” and “Badies. It does not include sale of land/buildings. No books of accounts have been maintained or produced before “lower authorities in relation to sale of properties. (iii) the properties were purchased long back in the year 2009 and then, never

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

Gain. However, in computation, the assessee has taken it as long term capital Asset. The above facts according to her clearly show that the AO has not made proper inquiry and verification. She, therefore, was of the opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of A.Y. 2016-17 is erroneous

THE SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF OTHE DISTIITUTE,DELHI vs. ACIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5372/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Society Of The Sisters Of The Vs Acit, Destitute, Jivodaya Hospital, Ashok Cpc, Vihar, New Delhi-110052 Bangalore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacts9595A Assessee By : Sh. Raman Murali, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2021

section 55;” 9. In Al-Ameen Educational Society vs. The Director of Income-tax (E) Bangalore on 14th September 2012, the ITAT, Bangalore 'C' Bench, Bangalore held that the expression “capital gain” or the mode of computation of capital gain has not been defined for the purpose of Sec.11 (1A) of the Act and therefore the normal expression capital gain

LATE SMT. GIRIRAJ KAUR L/H SRI RAVINDER GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains. As assessee has also claimed deduction of expenditure of Rs. 246000/- for improvement of the asset for which no details were produced, the ld AO did not allow 50% of such cost of improvement expenditure. The assessment was passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 20.03.2015 determining total income of the assessee

UMA DUTT PALIWAL PROP.,PANIPAT vs. ADDL. CIT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Uma Dutt Paliwal, Vs Addl. Cit, Prop. Paliwal Home Furnishing, Karnal. Panipat. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

capital gains under Section 48 shall be computed accordingly on the basis of such higher full value of consideration and not on the basis of apparent consideration shown in the sale deed; -If the assessee, being transferor, claims before the Assessing Officer that fair market value of the property under transfer is less than the valuation done by the Stamp

M/S. VIRTUAL SOFTWARE & TRAINING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -17(4), M/S. Virtual Software & Training Pvt. Ltd., N-136, Panchsheel New Delhi Park, New Delhi Pan : Aaacv8390F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. L.K. Paonam, Ar; K.R. Shukla, Adv.; & Bhupendra Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 26/03/2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2001-02 Raising Various Grounds. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/09/2015, Which Were Admitted. The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

capital gain after taking into account the sale consideration to be worked out as per directions of the Tribunal and to adopt the net worth of the business of the assessee as per the provisions of section 50B(3) of the Act. 3.1 Consequent to the direction of the Tribunal, in proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed

DCIT,, FARIDABAD vs. M/S ECO AUTO COMPONENTS LMITED,, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06 Vs. M/S. Eco Auto Components Ltd., Dcit, Faridabad Plot No. 20, Sector-6, Faridabad Pan : Aaace3659C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Respondent By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Date Of Hearing 09.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2018 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

capital gain under section 48 of the Act.” 5. We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. In the ground before us, the only issue is related to verification of the fact, whether the reference to the Valuation Officer was made under section 142A or under section 55A

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 55A is not applicable in the case of the assessee, it can also not be referred thereunder. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) in our view has rightly held the action of the AO in referring the matter to the DVO as misplaced. The Ld. CIT()A has also rightly not agreed with the contention of the AO that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DIVYA JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue Dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

capital gain arising out of such transfer has to be computed by looking at full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. The expression "full value of consideration" is not the same as "fair market value" as appearing in section 55A

KARTAR SINGH,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3268/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Kartar Singh, Vs Acit, C/O S.K. Bansal, Ca, Circle-42(1), 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi-11 Jhajjar Road, Opp. Khanu Mandi, Rohtak, Haryana-12001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Cskps5940K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

gain on an asset being land acquired in a mode specified u/s 49(1) of I.T. Act in which case cost of acquisition in the hands of last previous owner is to be taken as per Explanation to section 49(1). But neither the last previous owner nor the date of acquisition in the hands of last previous owner

SH. ANIL JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, Circle -5(1), New Delhi Sh. Anil Jain, B- 2/18, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aaipj2615C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 55A for the purpose of computing the capital gains. In the case of CIT Vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan INDL