M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Capital gains F.-Income from other sources.” ( Emphasis supplied) 9.1 Then subsequent chapters V of the Act has specified the income of other persons which are to be clubbed with the total income of the assessee. AYs: 2003-04 & 2008-09 9.2 Then chapter VI has specified certain deemed incomes under section 68, 69, 69A , 69B

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Capital gains F.-Income from other sources.” ( Emphasis supplied) 9.1 Then subsequent chapters V of the Act has specified the income of other persons which are to be clubbed with the total income of the assessee. AYs: 2003-04 & 2008-09 9.2 Then chapter VI has specified certain deemed incomes under section 68, 69, 69A , 69B

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. DELHI VOCATIONAL SCHOOL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue on solitary ground is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiito(Exemptions), Vs. Delhi Vocational School Trust Ward-Iii, Aayakar Bhawan, Society, Laxmu Nagar, Distt. Centre, C/O. Summer Fields School, New Delhi Kailash Colony, New Delhi Pan:Aabcs4104H (Appellant) (Respondent)

69B is in stricter terms than the erstwhile section 52(2). It does not even authorise the adoption of any yardstick to measure the precise extent of understatement. There can therefore be no compromise in the application of the section. It would seem to require the Assessing Officer even to show the exact extent of understatement of the investment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. SUMAN MINDA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 69B of the Act whereas in the present case it is capital gains under section 45 of the Act. Thus

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUTLEJ AGRO PRODUCTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

capital gain, such valuation can be taken as deemed consideration by virtue of specific deeming provision contained in section 50C of I.T. Act., in the hands of the seller. There is no such deeming provision for computing unaccounted investment u/s 69B

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUTLEJ AGRO PRODUCTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

capital gain, such valuation can be taken as deemed consideration by virtue of specific deeming provision contained in section 50C of I.T. Act., in the hands of the seller. There is no such deeming provision for computing unaccounted investment u/s 69B

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AMBREEN PROJECTS & INFRASTRCTURE (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain. In-each of these cases very wide meaning was ascribed to the word ‘income ’ as its natural meaning. The relevant observations of learned Judges deciding those cases which have been quoted in the judgment of Tendolkar, J. quite clearly indicate that such wide meaning was put upon the word ‘income ’ not because of any particular legislative practice either

CIT vs. LATA JAIN

capital gains accordingly. The Supreme Court held that it was the burden of the Assessing Officer to prove that there was understatement of consideration and once that burden was discharged it was not required of him to prove the precise extent of understatement and he could adopt the difference between the stated consideration and the fair market value

CIT vs. LATA JAIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains accordingly. The Supreme Court held that it was the burden of the Assessing Officer to prove that there was understatement of consideration and once that burden was discharged it was not required of him to prove the precise extent of understatement and he could adopt the difference between the stated consideration and the fair market value

CIT vs. LATA JAIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains accordingly. The Supreme Court held that it was the burden of the Assessing Officer to prove that there was understatement of consideration and once that burden was discharged it was not required of him to prove the precise extent of understatement and he could adopt the difference between the stated consideration and the fair market value

CIT vs. LATA JAIN

capital gains accordingly. The Supreme Court held that it was the burden of the Assessing Officer to prove that there was understatement of consideration and once that burden was discharged it was not required of him to prove the precise extent of understatement and he could adopt the difference between the stated consideration and the fair market value

CIT vs. DINESH J AIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains accordingly. The Supreme Court held that it was the burden of the Assessing Officer to prove that there was understatement of consideration and once that burden was discharged it was not required of him to prove the precise extent of understatement and he could adopt the difference between the stated consideration and the fair market value

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains accordingly. The Supreme Court held that it was the burden of the Assessing Officer to prove that there was understatement of consideration and once that burden was discharged it was not required of him to prove the precise extent of understatement and he could adopt the difference between the stated consideration and the fair market value

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains accordingly. The Supreme Court held that it was the burden of the Assessing Officer to prove that there was understatement of consideration and once that burden was discharged it was not required of him to prove the precise . extent of understatement and he could adopt the difference between the stated consideration and the fair market value

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

capital gains accordingly. The Supreme Court held that it was the burden of the Assessing Officer to prove that there was understatement of consideration and once that burden was discharged it was not required of him to prove the precise . extent of understatement and he could adopt the difference between the stated consideration and the fair market value

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

capital gains accordingly. The Supreme Court held that it was the burden of the Assessing Officer to prove that there was understatement of consideration and once that burden was discharged it was not required of him to prove the precise extent of understatement and he could adopt the difference between the stated consideration and the fair market value