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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT EXPORT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Bharat Export, Circle 20(1), 293. Dhakka Johar, Room No. F-308, Dr. Mukharjee Nagar, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.-110009 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaafb6979M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.L. Anuragi Dr Respondent By: Shri C.S. Anand, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 145(3) of the Act. 4. The second addition of Rs.1,09,830/- being disallowance of Vehicle Running Expenses was, however, confirmed as no log books were being maintained by the assessee. 5. As far as the issue of denial of exemption u/s 54G

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT EXPORT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Bharat Export, Circle 20(1), 293. Dhakka Johar, Room No. F-308, Dr. Mukharjee Nagar, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.-110009 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaafb6979M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.L. Anuragi Dr Respondent By: Shri C.S. Anand, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

section 145(3) of the Act. 4. The second addition of Rs.1,09,830/- being disallowance of Vehicle Running Expenses was, however, confirmed as no log books were being maintained by the assessee. 5. As far as the issue of denial of exemption u/s 54G

M/S. MACHINTORG (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

54G of the IT Act was not sustainable 4 ITA No.5453/Del./2012 in law. Mere wrong claim cannot be treated as concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions : (i). ITO v. Flora Exports (2010) 40 DTR (Tri-Del.) 70 (ii). Lakhvinder Singh (ITA No. 5169/Del/2004 decided

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

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

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

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

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

SH. BAL KISHAN ATAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

54G & 54GA. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a property for a total consideration of Rs.98,00,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 81,44,608/- under section 54 of the Income Tax Act after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.16,13,187/-. The assessee had invested a sum of Rs.62,68,311/- in the residential flat

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)

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 the relevant

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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.45,95,177/- of the Lucknow property\nand the indexation cost of Rs.28

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

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 the assessee

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

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 the assessee

SIMMI BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-32(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

54G, 54GA of Simmi Batra vs. ITO the Act”. Statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The AO observed that during the year under appeal assessee received total sum of Rs.1,41,86,718/- towards 6.25% share jointly hold with her minor son Master Kashish Batra in the property situated at A-10, MCIE, Mathura Road, New Delhi