MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

2. 36. In view of the above, the Assessee submits that the contention of the lower authorities that to decide the residential status, the events and documents relating to earlier years are required to be considered is unsustainable and bad in law. b. A company incorporated outside India is a resident of India only if the control and management

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

56(Cal), the AO received information from Investigation Wing that the prices of some shares of penny stock companies which included the company X in which the assessee made investment, were artificially rigged to benefit share holders through bogus claim of long term capital gain. The assessee had purchased shares of the company for Rs. 1 lakh and when

BRAWNY NIVESH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 56 (2) viia read with rule 11UA. It is bounden on the assessee to furnish reliable valuation determining such share premium as in its case for the AY 2015-16, from a qualified valuer. The assessee has not done the same, nor has any submission filed before me in this regard. The AO has carried out the exercise

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: Provided that in case the aforesaid arrangement involves a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, the amount of profits from such transaction shall be determined having regard

BIGSTAR HOTELS RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NEW DELHI

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

section 50CA & 56(2)(x) of the Act by taking into account the FMV of jewellery, artistic work, shares & securities and stamp duty value in case of immovable property and book value for the rest of the assets. Consequently, the law was amended w.e.f. 01.04.2018, after-which, the valuation of FMV based NAV of unquoted shares are to be done

TARA VATI,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. CIRCLE 3(1) GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

capital gain" and not "income from other sources" ? It was argued by the assessee that there is no amendment in section 10(37) and by insertion of sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv), the nature of interest under section 28 of the 1894 Act will remain that of compensation and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

x) J.T. (India) Exports and Anr. Vs. UOI 262 ITR 269 (FB) (Del.). 13. With regard to addition of stamp duty, ld. AR submitted that assessee prefers not to press this ground. 14. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that ld. CIT (A) has right to dispose of the issue under dispute as per section

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

56(Cal), the AO received\nInformation from Investigation Wing that the prices of some shares of penny\nstock companies which included the company X in which the assessee made\nInvestment, were artificially rigged to benefit shareholders through bogus\nclaim of long term capital gain. The assessee had purchased shares of the\ncompany for Rs.1 lakh and when the Investments

BITO-LAGERTECHNIK BITTMANN GMBH,GARMANY vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital gains under the Act. 1.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO/DRP has erred in charging income amounting to INR 12,18,33,600 to tax under Section 56(2)(x

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain shall be deemed to\nhave been applied to charitable or religious purposes because of\ninsertion of Section 11(1A) of the Act which has been specifically\ninserted to allow this exemption by Finance No. 2 Act 1971 with\nretrospective effect from 1.4.1962\"\nThis fully applies to facts of present case.\nAbove stated legal position more strongly applies

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

56,57,58, 59, payment of Rs.85L 60 & 61 pertaining to Sh. Ashok Bansal. Hand Written Notes and ATS containing details of cash receipts of Rs.2.08 cr P a g e | 12 ITA Nos. 1819 to 1821/Del/2025 Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (AYs: 2017-18 to 2019-20) pertaining to Sh. Ashok Bansal. Hand written Notes and ATS containing details