Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

disallowed the expenses claimed by the appellant as revenue expenditure. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The CIT(A), vide order dated 7.8.2003, confirmed the action of the AO. The appellant preferred the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the „Tribunal‟). The Tribunal vide

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD vs. C.I.T

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

disallowed the expenses claimed by the appellant as revenue expenditure. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The CIT(A), vide order dated 7.8.2003, confirmed the action of the AO. The appellant preferred the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the „Tribunal‟). The Tribunal vide

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

54D, 54G, 54GA\".\n3. \"Large long term capital gain”.\n3.\nNotice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 22.06.2016 was served on\nassessee. Subsequently, notices under Section 142(1) dated 10.07.2018 and\n06.09.2018 were served on assessee. In response to notices under Section 143(2)\nand 142(1) of the Act, Learned Authorised Representative of assessee made\nsubmissions through

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

disallowance of deduction of ₹ 37,193,760 u/s 54 of the act for Mumbai flat. 28. With respect to deduction u/s 54EC of the act, he held that spirit of Section 54EC would get defeated in case the interpretation as mentioned in the CBDT circular number 359 applicable for the Section 54D

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

disallowance of deduction of ₹ 37,193,760 u/s 54 of the act for Mumbai flat. 28. With respect to deduction u/s 54EC of the act, he held that spirit of Section 54EC would get defeated in case the interpretation as mentioned in the CBDT circular number 359 applicable for the Section 54D

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

disallowance of deduction of ₹ 37,193,760 u/s 54 of the act for Mumbai flat. 28. With respect to deduction u/s 54EC of the act, he held that spirit of Section 54EC would get defeated in case the interpretation as mentioned in the CBDT circular number 359 applicable for the Section 54D

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMINATHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

54D, 54G & 54GA” as would be evident from the Assessment Order (Para 2, Page 1 of the Assessment Order) 5. During scrutiny proceedings, the said claim of deduction under section 54F, had been examined in detail and duly allowed. However, only the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 10,25,801/- & the expense of Rs. 2,83,473/- was disallowed

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, we must also add that the prescribed authority would also necessarily have to examine the manner in which the affairs of the university or an educational institution have been conducted in the past for the purposes of considering whether the Assessee qualifies the threshold requirement of Section

KAMLESH KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 54 amounting to Rs. 1,13,04,000/- made by the AO. The CIT(Appeals) as well as the AO failed to appreciate that the Assessee had purchased only one residential property. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(Appeals) as well as the AO have erred in law and on facts in treating

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONKARESHWAR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 40,55,600/- (B.1) Thereafter, penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act was levied by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) vide order dated 26.02.2016, amounting to Rs. 16,47,08,371/- which was @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. Against the penalty order dated 26.02.2016, assessee appealed before

M/S. ONKARESHWAR PROPERTIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of Rs. 40,55,600/-. 2. The facts in brief qua the first issue are that, the assessee is a private limited company which has shown long term capital gain of Rs. 117,67,97,883/- in its return of income. During the year under consideration assessee had sold a land measuring 133 Kanal

SH. KARAM CHAND,FATEHABAD vs. ITO, FATEHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

54D, 54EC, 54ED and 54F of the I.T. Act. The A.O. after considering the material on record has adopted the fair market value @ Rs.5760/- per acre and computed long term capital gains at Rs.1,19,22,887/- arising out of transfer of land by 4 ITA.No.5401/Del./2016 Shri Karam Chand, Fatehabad. assessee to M/s Soma New Town

MUMTAZ NASEEM SYED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 54 of the income tax act, 1961 solely on the ground that the new property in which the amount of capital gain has been invested is in joint name of the assessee and her son since the 3 ITA. 3195/Del/2019 Mrs. Mumtaz Naseem Syed, ND payments made out of the earnings / contribution of her son Mr. Khalid Naseem

ACIT, CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANDEEP TANEJA, DELHI

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Shri Sandeep Taneja, Circle- 56(1), C-228, Surajmal Vihar New Delhi Delhi-110092 Pan – Aadpt6410G

54D, 54G, 54GA” 2.3 The Ld. Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) on 24.12.2017, thereby determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,82,31,550/- as under :- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Total Income as per return 1,17,42,240/- Disallowance of claim made in respect of long term capital gains

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

54D,54G, 54GA (Schedule CG of ITR) and (iii) Large balance in foreign bank account (Schedule FA of ITR). Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13/07/2017 and served through email as well as speed post. Ld. Authorized Representative (A/R) of the assessee Sh. Vinay Malik, CA filed his Authorization to represent the case. During

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54D, 2\n7[54E, 8[54EA, 54EB,] 54F 2[, 54G and 54H]]]]], be chargeable to\nincome-tax under the head \"Capital gains\", and shall be deemed to be the\nincome of the previous year in which the transfer took place.\n9. 2. The computation of capital gains as filed by the assessee\nregarding sale consideration of Rs.45

VINOD ANAND,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II,, FARIDABAD

The Appeal is dismissed ex parte

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vinod Anand Vs. Dcit, House No. 2288, Circle-Ii, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”, henceforth) on 30.06.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 70,72,580/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under ‘CASS’ and the same was assessed at an income of Rs. 98,61,560/- making an addition of Rs. 27,88,975/- as Long Term Capital Gain

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ATUL BANSAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

54D, 54G, 54GA and Large interest expenses relatable to exempt investment u/s 14A.” 6. Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the relevant information as caller for. After considering the submissions made by the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that

SH. ATUL BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanatul Bansal, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 16 Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri Delhi. New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Acit, Central Circle 16, Vs, Atul Bansal Delhi Farm No. 22, The Green Rajokri New Delhi – 110 038. (Pan: Agcpb1274F) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 Date Of Order : 06.02.2026 O R D E R

54D, 54G, 54GA and Large interest expenses relatable to exempt investment u/s 14A.” 6. Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee submitted the relevant information as caller for. After considering the submissions made by the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that