IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4). A return filed under section 139(1) can certainly be revised within the time limit under section 139(5). Return filed u/s 139 (3) if in accordance with the other provisions of the filing of the loss return for the provisions of the act shall apply to that return as if it were return under subsection

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4). A return filed under section 139(1) can certainly be revised within the time limit under section 139(5). Return filed u/s 139 (3) if in accordance with the other provisions of the filing of the loss return for the provisions of the act shall apply to that return as if it were return under subsection

M/S. FIBERFILL ENGINEERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Acit Circle 38(1), C-9/9574, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. (New Circle 63(1),Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaff 6313 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gautam Jain Adv. P. Kamal Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Rehka Vimal Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2016. Date Of Order : 25/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

4), the AO referred to various case laws relied upon by assessee and pointed out that a bare perusal of section 80AC makes it very clear that the return of income should have been filed within time limit specified u/s 139(1). He relied on various case laws mentioned in his order, wherein it was held that return

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARISH CHANDER KHULLAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Harish Chander Khullar, Ward 27(2), Vs. E-88-B, Mansarover Garden, Room No. 1909, New Delhi – 110 015 E-2 Block, Civic Centre, (Pan: Aafpk8788A) Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 4 of 139 of the I T Act. The Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the exemption on the long

INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

139(4) of the Act, the disallowance made and\nsustained is not in accordance with law.\n2.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also\nfailed to appreciate that clarification vide F.No. 173/193/2019-ITA-I\ndated 23.4.2019 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes read with\nmemorandum explaining Finance Bill in respect of third proviso\ninserted to section

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

disallowance of exemption u/s. 54 of I.T. Act, holding that “Regarding the investment in new asset, I find that the appellant had not invested the eligible amount before the due date for filing the return of income and as such the appellant was required to deposit the relevant amount in the specified capital gains scheme to avail the benefit

DCIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. A.P. SECURITAS PVT. LTD, DELHI

In the result, application for condonation of delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is allowed and appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumardcit, Vs. A. P. Securitas Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-14, 10-Dda, Commercial Complex, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaca1315R

4) as equivalent to Section 139(1) renders the phrase "on or before the due date specified under Section 139(1)" in Section 80AC(ii) otiose, contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation. 5. No Equity in Taxation  The Ld. CIT(A)'s reliance on "bona fide reasons" and "reasonable delay" is contrary to settled law.  In CIT v. Anjum

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

4,2 014 is not applicable to A.YITA No. 880/Del/2014 2009-10. But in view of proposition rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it is settled that the proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act being declaratory and curative is applicable from 1.4.2005 which is (lie date of insertion of sub-section (ia) of section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPLENDOR LANDBASE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanti.T.A. No.2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Splendor Landbase Of Income, Central Vs. Limited, Circle-3, F-38/2, Splendor House, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 215/Del/2016 In I.T.A. No. 2461/Del/2016 A.Y. : 2010-11 M/S Splendor Landbase Assistant Commissioner Limited, Vs. Of Income, Central Circle- F-38/2, Splendor House, 3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-Ii, New Delhi (Pan: Aaeca3986E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing carry forward of loss in 153A assessment is proper, because the return was belated in accordance with provisions of section 139(3). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant records especially the case laws cited by both the parties. We have also gone through the provisions of section 153A of the Act which is reproduced

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

4)/revised return under section 139(5) even though he made no deposits of un-invested capital gain in capital gains account scheme on or before the due date of filing ITR under section 139(1). 18. The decision in Dr. Dharmista Mehta’s case (supra) applies squarely to the facts of the assessee’s case before

M/S PARNIKA COMMERCIAL & ESTATES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s.80IA of the Act by applying the Explanation to sec.80IA of the Act. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income- tax(Appeals), who following the earlier order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No.544/Mds/2010 dated 13.9.2011 allowed the claim

RRPR HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4700/Del/2014 2 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. That the disallowance of carry forward of long term capital loss claimed on the sale of shares in the revised return of Rs.206,25,53,801/- as sustained

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

4) of section 139, he could fulfill requirement under section 54 for exemption of capital gain from being charged to income-tax on sale of property used for residence up to 30-3- 1998 - Whether assessee was entitled to claim benefit under section 54 on entire amount of capital gains - Held, yes 10. In the background of the aforesaid discussions

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

4) of section 139, he could fulfill requirement under section 54 for exemption of capital gain from being charged to income-tax on sale of property used for residence up to 30-3- 1998 - Whether assessee was entitled to claim benefit under section 54 on entire amount of capital gains - Held, yes 10. In the background of the aforesaid discussions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But the revenue's contention is that the payments are in the nature of machinery hire charges falling under the head 'rent' and the previous provisions of section 194-I of the Act are applicable. According to revenue, the assessee has deducted tax @ 1% u/s. 194C(2) of the Act as against

ROHTASH SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

139(1) of the IT Act? ……….. 4. Re. Question No. 2: As is clear from Sub Section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section 54F(1), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then