COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains” and “income from other sources”. Then comes Section 14A, which we will be examining later on. Chapter IV consists of Sections 14 to 59 and deals with computation/quantification under separate heads of income mentioned in Section 14. Chapter V of the Act deals with income of other persons, which are to be included in the assessee‟s total

MEENA GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 153C r.w.s 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs.1,45,44,630/-. A search and seizure action was carried out on the Rama and Param Group and other related cases on 28.02.2014 at various residential and business premises. Certain incriminating documents relating to the assessee were found during the said search which pertain to the impugned

BHIM SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

80C &Rs 18,172/- claimed U/s 80Dof the Act. The action of the ld.AO is totally unlawful, unjustified and unreasonable. The deduction claimed deserves to be allowed. 2. On the basis of Facts &circumstances of the case there is no legal warrant or valid justification on the part of learned AO to make addition

NAUNIHAL SINGH SAHNI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 49(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

80C of the Act claimed by the Assessee. 5. That the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in ignoring the facts that the Assessee has incurred huge amount on cost of improvement in property sold. 6. That the proper and meaningful opportunity was not provided to the Assessee while framing the assessment u/s 144/147 of the Act. Thus the order framed

NAND KISHORE GUPTA,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C.

section 50(2) of the Act. 3.4 Otherwise also, the lower Authorities erred in assessing Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 19,61,197/- as Short Term Capital Gain and demanding Income Tax at ordinary slab against 20% Rate prescribed u/s 112 of the Act. 3.5 That the lower Authorities erred in not giving claim of deduction u/s 80C

ANUJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-61, NEW DELHI

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

Capital Gain against income from other sources as taxed by the Assessing Officer. 4. That there was no justification for levying of interest u/s- 234B & 234C of the Act on the facts of the case and as per law. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal