VIKRAM KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 54F are beneficial in nature and the Courts have always accorded liberal interpretation and a small delay of few days have been condoned

SHIMLA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3) , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Us Which Is Filed In Paper Book At Page

54F of the Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore, there cannot be any tax liability and the said cash deposited explained as u/s 68 of Income tax act 1961. 7. That the impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 8. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) is not justify

SHYAM SUNDER ,GURURGAM vs. ITO ( CIRCLE 4(1) , GURGRAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

54F and reducing the indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer recomputed the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,13,56,916/-. The said amount was added to the returned income, and the total assessed income was determined accordingly. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings separately under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and under section 271F

AMITA BAIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 32(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay despite the assessee having sufficient cause for the delay in filing of appeal. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Id. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,22,154/-, made by A.O. by invoking section 54F

VIRENDER SINGH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

section 54F (4) have not been met, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. Therefore, the appeal is rejected. ” 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds relate thereto. 6. The appeal to the Tribunal was found to have been filed late by 1193 days which was notified to the assessee vide Registry

AZAD SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1), DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Azad Singh Vs Ito Village- Hiron Kudna, Ward-42(1) New Delhi Civic Centre, Jln Marg, Bzxps4944Q New Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2022

delay is condoned appeal is admittedly for hearing . 9. Ground No. 1 is against not providing opportunity to the assessee. Ground No. 1 to 10 are against validity of the proceedings. 10. The assessee has not brought any material in support of his averments. Therefore, these grounds of the assessee’s appeal are dismissed. 11. Ground No. 11 is against

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

delay is condoned. 5. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:21.04.2023 05:07:47 Signature Not Verified Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2697-DB ITA 194/2023 Page 2 of 5 ITA 194/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail via the instant appeal the order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

delay is condoned. 5. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:21.04.2023 05:07:47 Signature Not Verified Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2697-DB ITA 194/2023 Page 2 of 5 ITA 194/2023 6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 7. The appellant/revenue seeks to assail via the instant appeal the order

HARENDRA SINGH,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD - 3(2), BULANDSHAHR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Harendra Singh, Vs Ito, Vill. Nizampur, P.O-Khurja Ward-3(2), Junction, Tehsil-Khurja, Bulandshahr (U.P.). Bulandshahr-203132 (U.P). Pan-Aosph9924A Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2022

condone the delay and admit the present appeal for hearing. 3 | P a g e FACTS OF THE CASE 8. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the Assessing Officer [“AO”] was having an AIR information about the sale of immovable property [M/s. Arshiya Rail Infrastructure Ltd.] for sale consideration of Rs.61

SHUSHMA VERMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2(2)(3) GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Sushma Verma Vs. Assessing Officer, 419, Competent House F-14 Ward 2(2)(3) Inner Middle Circle Ghaziabad Connaught Place New Delhi Ghaziabad 110001 Pan No. Aclpv002If (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 54F of the Act and therefore the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made by the AO is liable to be deleted. 7. Because the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred In law and on fact in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 29,59.250/-, without appreciating the fact that this investment in 50% share

DIALNET COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dial Net Communications Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-31, Ground Floor, Greater Ward-7(3), New Delhi. Kailash, Part-I, Delhi-110048. Pan: Aabcd 5472 D Appellant Respondent

54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer considered 50% of the investments whereas 100% investments were done through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee stated that it cannot be said that correct particulars of income were not furnished. The assessee further pointed out that he was in need of funds for purchase of a new flat, that he sold trees with

SATYAMURTI RAMASUNDAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon [briefly ‘the Assessing Officer”] has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 147 of the Income

SATYAWATI (L/H OF LATE DHAN PRAKASH TYAGI),GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD -1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Satyawati Vs. Ito, (L/H Of Late Dhan Prakash Tyagi), Ward-1(2), Vill. Makan Pur, Ghaziabad. Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (Up). Pan: Aeept6151K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Harsh Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2019

delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and no return of income was filed by the assessee. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 for the reason that capital gains arisen on sale of immoveable property for Rs.5

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

delay of 42 days in re-filing the appeals is condoned. The applications shall stand disposed of. ITA 168/2024 ITA 169/2024 1. The Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [„ITAT‟] dated 11 August 2023 and has proposed the following questions for our consideration:- “2.1 Whether Ld. ITAT has erred in not considering the observation made

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

delay of 42 days in re-filing the appeals is condoned. The applications shall stand disposed of. ITA 168/2024 ITA 169/2024 1. The Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [„ITAT‟] dated 11 August 2023 and has proposed the following questions for our consideration:- “2.1 Whether Ld. ITAT has erred in not considering the observation made

VIJAY KUMAR SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 33(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 5244/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Vijay Kumar Seth, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Flat No. 8, Vasant Enclave, Tax, Circle-33(1), New Delhi-110057 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxps6514Q Assessee By : Sh. Karan Kumra, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini:

54F, as supported by documents submitted before the AO. 3 Vijay Kumar Seth (9) The Appellant craves to add, alter, delete or modify any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The sole issue involved in all the grounds of appeal in this appeal is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.38

SMT. CHANDRA PRABHA,MEERUT vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3780/Del/2016 (A.Y – 2007-08) Smt. Chandra Prabha Vs Income Tax Officer, W/O Shri Yash Pal Singh, Ward – 1(2), T-38, Pallavpuram, Phase – Ii, Ghaziabad (U.P.) Meerut (Pan : Afbpp 6562 L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

54F are not allowable. Accordingly, assessment for the A.Y. 2008-09 was made on protective basis. To make the assessment on substantive basis in A.Y. 2007-08 the case was reopened u/s 148 as Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.72,12,675/- had arisen to the assessee in A.Y. 2007-08, and which was not declared