GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

disallowance of the benefit of indexation. 2.3 That the leasehold right in the land having been acquired by the Appellant upon the date of allotment in terms of section 2(47), the period of holding of such right should be considered from the date of allotment. 2.4 That the Appellant had paid the entire cost in Financial Year

OMPAL,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD - 2(1), M

In the result ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 55A of the Income tax Act and decide the issue on merits. In view of this ground no 1 of the appeal is set aside to the file of AO with above direction to consider the valuation report, if any, submitted by the assessee in above time frame. Needless to say that the AO was required to give proper

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)

disallowed indexed cost of construction for Rs.27,88,975/-. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has furnished additional evidence under Rule 46A in which it was stated that the appellant had constructed a house on the plot in 2006 and sold the same. Through additional evidences the appellant had furnished loan documents from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. as the proof

KUSUM MITTAL ,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, GURGAON

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 3.1 That the aforesaid addition has made without opportunity that once no reference was made to the valuation officer u/s 55A of the Act despite specific request by the appellant and therefore addition made is illegal, invalid and void-ab-initio. Prayer It is therefore, prayed that it be held that assessment