DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. AJAY GOEL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation Under Section 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the legislature\nhad to amend the provisions of Section 32 with effect from\n1.4.1997 by using the expression II owned wholly or partly". So, the word\n\"own\" would not include a case where a residential house is partly owned by\none person or partly owned by other person

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

54F of the Act does not arises on having a "Right" in the property. The appellant has in his earlier submissions placed on record before your honour the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the apex court has distinguished the "Right" and "Ownership" held in a property. d) Further, the disallowance is warranted in respect of a Residential

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

54F of the Act does not arises on having a "Right" in the property. The appellant has in his earlier submissions placed on record before your honour the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the apex court has distinguished the "Right" and "Ownership" held in a property. d) Further, the disallowance is warranted in respect of a Residential

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., the assessee is entitled to exemption in terms of section

SRI OMKAR CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 346/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Omkar Chadha, Vs Income Tax Officer, I-39, Jangpura Extn., Ward-54(3), New Delhi-110014 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc8329G Assessee By : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2020

Section 54F, the amendments, the ratio of judgments wherein two residential units are considered as “a residential house” and keeping view the facts of the instant case wherein the assessee has invested in two distinctly identifiable properties at separate locations, we hereby hold that the assessee is eligible to claim deduction on the investment of capital gains in the Ansal

YASH SUNEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-42(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

depreciation was claimed in respect of the same; that the proviso (b) to section 54F (1) of the Act defines

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any person receives at any time during any previous year any money or other assets under an insurance from

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 160 and 162 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as according to him assessee is a ‘representative assessee’ of Shri Ashok Tyagi and long term capital gain is chargeable to tax in the hand of the assessee. He therefore, held that Shri Manish Tyagi is a representative assessee of Shri Ashok Tyagi

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any person receives at any time during any previous year any money or other assets under an insurance from

CIT vs. RAJIV SHUKLA

Appeal is dismissed

Section 54F and that the flat sold by him was a depreciable asset. As per provisions of Section 50, the capital

ITO, MEERUT vs. M/S. BHAVYESH GUPTA HUF, MEERUT

In the result, ground No. 2 of the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shrii.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

depreciated up to 1-4-1981 cannot be accepted in view of express provision of law contained in section 55 (2) (b), wherein an option is given to the assessee where the capital asset is acquired prior to 1st day of April, 1981 to adopt the cost of acquisition of the asset at fair market value of the asset prevailing

VIPUL KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

section 54F the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the same can be taxed only in the AY 2015-16 i.e. after the expiry of 3 years is not acceptable as not being in accordance with law. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee

NEELAM GARG,KARNAL vs. ITO, WARD NO. 3, KARNAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargneelam Garg, Vs. Ito, Hem Chand Jain, H. No. 2, Ward No. 3, Huda Staff Owarter, No. 1, Karnal Sector-13, Extn, Karnal, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ainpg2119D Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Sachdeva, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/06/2023

section 54 and 54F as being available to more than one house, based on the definition of “a” which could mean many or more than one as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ananda Basappa (supra). 5.4 The decision relied on by the learned departmental representative is not applicable to the facts

GIRDHARI LAL,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), GURGAON

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

depreciation u/s 54B and 54F. Ld. CIT (A) also agreed that the surrender of balance amount was not voluntary. Ld. CIT (A) proceeded to refer several case laws and confirmed the penalty. 5. Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. 4 ITA No.3458/Del./2019 6. We have heard ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record. None

CIT vs. GAURAV SAKLANI

The appeal is dismissed

Section 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee had included the newly purchased property in the schedule of business assets in the balance sheet. He has, however, recorded in the assessment order that the assessee had not claimed any depreciation

ITO, WARD-32(4), NEW DELHI vs. SWATI OBEROI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to the tune of Rs.49,55,589/- and deduction u/s 54F of the Act for Rs.2,65,79,975/-. Assessee claimed to have invested an amount of Rs.2,65,79,975/- for purchasing 2/3rd share in a residential house i.e. Villa No.V-2/2, Jaypee Greens, D-Block, Surajpur-Kasna

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset” effected

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset” effected

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset” effected