CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

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

2. The assessee, a private limited company incorporated on 04.01.1992 filed its return of income for assessment year 2007-2008, on 30.01.2008 declaring NIL income after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,15,666/-. The assessment was taken up under Section 143 (3) by the A.O. The assessee had purchased during the period in consideration six properties. The declared value

SHRI BALAJI INDUSTRIES COMPLEX,BADAUN vs. CIT, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Balaji Industries Complex, Cit, Ismailpur, Moradabad-244001 Vs Badaun. (Pan: Abefs3007Q) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Department By: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2018

depreciable items had to be taxed under ‘short term capital gains’. The Ld. Pr. C.I.T. was also of the view that the stamp duty value of the property was to be deemed as full value of the consideration for the purpose of section 48 r/w section 50C of the Act. The Ld. Pr. C.I.T. directed the Assessing Officer to examine

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

50C of the Act was already on the statute prior to the former section being incorporated in the Act. If section 50D of the Act was sufficient to capture the situation as in the present case, then there was no necessity to insert provision of Section 50CA of the Act in the statute by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f

LORDS FINCAP LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 15(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

2,50,00,000/- which was lower than the prevailing circle rate in the area for the purpose of stamp valuation. c) This fact was also brought to the notice of assessing officer during the assessment proceedings with respect to refer the matter to D.V.O. The assessing officer completed the assessment taking the circle rate value of Rs.30

ANANT RAJ LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2,CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

50C of the Act without considering the reasons submitted by the appellant, and therefore, the impugned addition confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) deserves to be set-aside and the income on account of sale of the property he reassessed after giving an adequate opportunity to the appellant to represent and being heard in the matter. I.T.A. Nos.5169 & 5677/DEL/2017

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

50C of the Act without considering the reasons submitted by the appellant, and therefore, the impugned addition confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) deserves to be set-aside and the income on account of sale of the property he reassessed after giving an adequate opportunity to the appellant to represent and being heard in the matter. I.T.A. Nos.5169 & 5677/DEL/2017

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Depreciation on turbine 1289189 Electricity duty 787872 The AO is also directed to verity the above figures. Accordingly the AO is directed to rework the deduction under section 80I-A claimed by the appellant as indicated in the preceding discussion." 16. The Tribunal, concurred with the aforesaid findings recorded by the CIT (A), by taking support of the decision

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on goodwill. 61. The Ld.AR for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue raised vide present grounds of appeal is similar to the issue raised vide Ground of appeal Nos. 5 to 5.3 of appeal in Assessment Year 2010-11. 62. We have already adjudicated the issue in paras above, while deciding the appeal for Assessment

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on goodwill. 61. The Ld.AR for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue raised vide present grounds of appeal is similar to the issue raised vide Ground of appeal Nos. 5 to 5.3 of appeal in Assessment Year 2010-11. 62. We have already adjudicated the issue in paras above, while deciding the appeal for Assessment

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on goodwill. 61. The Ld.AR for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue raised vide present grounds of appeal is similar to the issue raised vide Ground of appeal Nos. 5 to 5.3 of appeal in Assessment Year 2010-11. 62. We have already adjudicated the issue in paras above, while deciding the appeal for Assessment

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on goodwill. 61. The Ld.AR for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue raised vide present grounds of appeal is similar to the issue raised vide Ground of appeal Nos. 5 to 5.3 of appeal in Assessment Year 2010-11. 62. We have already adjudicated the issue in paras above, while deciding the appeal for Assessment

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on goodwill. 61. The Ld.AR for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue raised vide present grounds of appeal is similar to the issue raised vide Ground of appeal Nos. 5 to 5.3 of appeal in Assessment Year 2010-11. 62. We have already adjudicated the issue in paras above, while deciding the appeal for Assessment

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciation on goodwill. 61. The Ld.AR for the assessee at the outset pointed out that the issue raised vide present grounds of appeal is similar to the issue raised vide Ground of appeal Nos. 5 to 5.3 of appeal in Assessment Year 2010-11. 62. We have already adjudicated the issue in paras above, while deciding the appeal for Assessment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S R. INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit Vs R. Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3, Room No. 332, B-319, Okhla Industrial Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr8053M Appellant Respondent

2) and u/s 142(1) with questionnaire was issued on 06.08.2013. These notices were attended and requisite details were filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 4,32,72,770/- on account of Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before

REPRO AUTO PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 21(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshrepro Auto Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 177, W-7 Lane, Sainik Farms, Ward-21(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr6510R Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

2. The Revenue urges the following question of law for our consideration : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.80,58,000/on the ground that provisions of section 50C

MAHESH CHAND JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2008-09 Mahesh Chand Jain Vs. Ito, C/O, Jagdish Chand & Co., Ward-53(5) H-20, Lgf, Green Park New Delhi (Main), New Delhi]

section 50C. The appellant during assessment had submitted that reference could be made to the valuation officer, as adoption of the circle rate would be unfair, stating in the following lines: That the property was rented out to a known person Mr. Vinit Kumar Jain. Proprietor M/s Sidharth Metal at a rent of Rs.5,000/- (by rent agreement dated

M/S. SAINT MARY'S EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT (E), GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 50C of the Act, Rs. 4.50 crores was attributable to land and the balance Rs. 1,42,05,000/- be attributed towards sale of building and the 2 same be reduced from WDV of the block. Since the block of assets does not cease to exist on such reduction, no capital gains raise on sale of building. Accordingly

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. SAINT MARY'S EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE SOCIETY, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee and Revenue

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

section 50C of the Act, Rs. 4.50 crores was attributable to land and the balance Rs. 1,42,05,000/- be attributed towards sale of building and the 2 same be reduced from WDV of the block. Since the block of assets does not cease to exist on such reduction, no capital gains raise on sale of building. Accordingly