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

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

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

54F are beneficial in nature and the Courts have always accorded liberal interpretation and a small delay of few days have been condoned for the eligibility purposes. Even otherwise, in these circumstances, the imposition of penalty on account of denial of deduction on such technical breach is not justified on the contours of Section 271(1

MANJULA SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhrimanjula Sethi Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Assistant L-42A Lajpat Nagar-Ii Commissioner Of Income New Delhi- 110024 Tax/Ito,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aatps7572E Appellant .. Respondent

delay is, thus, condoned. 3. The assessee has claimed exemption of Rs.5,18,39,518/- under Section 54F of the Act by purchasing a residential house lying and situated at PH-2, Sun Court Apartment, Tower-1, Greater Noida for a consideration of Rs.520,00,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.5,23,32,741/- earned as LTCG

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

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

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

1) and furnish the proof of same with the return of income. The appellant has admitted that no amount was deposited in Capital Gains Account Scheme. No proof that the amount was utilized in the manner prescribed u/s 54F (4) has been furnished with return of income. Since the conditions laid down in section 54F (4) have not been

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

1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned CIT(A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 2(47) of the Act 1961 which includes relinquishment of any rights. The land use was changed in land revenue record on 05.08.2008 i.e. after the execution of the said registered ‘Agreement to Sell’. Therefore, as on the date of sale of the land on 30.07.2008, the land sold was an agricultural land. 1

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

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

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:

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the orders passed by the AO under section 143(3) and order of the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act are illegal, invalid and void ab initio and merit quashing. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case