KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.15,63,566/- out of the disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.105,67,271/- for Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- at Dibrugarh. The case was selected

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.15,63,566/- out of the disallowance made by the Ld. AO of Rs.105,67,271/- for Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 26.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.66,070/- at Dibrugarh. The case was selected

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)

Section 54F of Act for an amount of Rs.21,28,34,670/- on investment in residential property with “The Camellias” 4 in DLF Ltd. despite owning more than one residential property. Share transfer expenses of Rs.44,10,634/- were disallowed. 3. On completion of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO vide order dated 09.12.2018 made additions of Rs.21

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance under section 54F before the Ld. CIT(A). The detailed written 4 ITA.No.161/Del./2020 Smt. Savita Bhasin L.R. of (wife) Shri Ramesh Chander Bhasin, New Delhi. submissions of the assessee is reproduced in the appellate order which reads as under : “4.3.1. On this issue the appellant has made the following submissions: (1

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

1, Gurgaon dated 20/2/2015 for assessment year 2011-12 raising solitary ground of appeal that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the CIT –( A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance on account of deduction as claimed by the assessee under section 54F

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

disallowance under section 54 of the Act, which is a beneficial section and for that purpose only thing to be ensured is that capital gains consideration arising on sale of long-term capital asset are reinvested in residential property. She further submitted that even as per section 54 of the Act, there is no requirement that the assessee should have

SMT. VATSALA ASTHANA,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Vatsala Asthana, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Dc-97, Maya Enclave, Hari Ward-49(4), New Delhi Nagar, New Delhi Pan :Aefpa4935D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sanjeev Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr.Dr

1, the assessee has challenged the action of the Assessing Officer of disallowing claim of the assessee under section 54F

SH. ADARSH KUMAR SWARUP,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

section 54F is not applicable to the facts of the case. After considering the reply of the assessee and the documents submitted the claim of the assessee u/s 54(1) is accepted and assessment was completed at 24,60,130/- being taxable Long Term Capital Gain vide AO’s order dated 10.3.2014 passed

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1) for the assessment year 2011-12 under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), vide his order dated 30th March, 2014. 2. The only issue in the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.7008/Del/2019 is as regards to the order of learned CIT(A) allowing deduction under Section 54F

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)

54F of Rs. 56,55,874/-. Thus the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the order dated 15.07.2015. THEREFORE, assessee preferred appeal before us. 6. Ground No. 2 is e with respect to addition of Rs. 7,70,000/- laces on account of cash deposited in Syndicate Bank. The ground No. 3 to 13 are with respect

SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

1, 2015, which makes it clear that benefit of section 54F will be applicable to one residential house in India. Prior to the amendment it was clear that a residential house would include multiple residential units. 13 20. Further as per the provisions of section 54 it cannot be denied that the new residential House Property purchased / constructed should

SAVITA BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowed deduction claimed of Rs.51,02,718/- under Section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer while making the aforesaid additions also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1

CIT vs. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA

Section 54F of the Act as against total claim of `3,18,59,276/- made by the assessee. The AO allowed claim only to the extent of `1,59,29,638/- and the balance 50% being `1,59,29,638/- was disallowed

DCIT, CC, GZBD , GZBD vs. ANJALI MITTAL , GZBD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54F(1)(b) of the Act, and computed the exempt value of capital gain at Rs. 14,93,596/- as against the assessee’s claim of Rs. 28,94,757/- by recording his findings in para 6.4 to 6.8 as under:- “6.4 I have carefully perused the observation of the AO in the matter of disallowance

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1) for the assessment year 2011-12 under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), vide his order dated 30th March, 2014. 2. The only issue in the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.7008/Del/2019 is as regards to the order of learned CIT(A) allowing deduction under Section 54F

ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

54F(1)(a). 2. At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that here in this case, original assessment was completed u/s.143 (3) by determining the total income of Rs.38,35,743/- after 2 I.T.A. No.5828/DEL/2016 making following two additions / disallowances: 1. Disallowance of claim u/s.54F of the Act - Rs.30,17,056 2. Disallowance of claim of interest Rs.18

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

RAM MOHAN RAI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of deduction under section 54 of the income tax act. Consequently, assessment under section 143 (3) of the income tax act was passed on 24/02/2016 determining total income of the assessee at to Rs. 14230750/- against a returned income of Rs. 7648330/–. Assessee, aggrieved with the order of the Ld. assessing officer preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner