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

properties purchased before due date of filing belated return i.e. 31.03.2014. This contention of the Ld. AO has been assailed by the Ld. AR on the ground that the assessee had filed her return for AY 2012- 13 under section 139(4) of the Act on 25.10.2013 well before 31.03.2014 9 upto which date she could file her belated return

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

139 thirty per cent of, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid. Sanjeev Gupta Vs. Addl. CIT, Provided further that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

property on or before 31.3.2008, that is within extended period of limitation of filing of return. Only a sum of Rs.24 lacs was paid out of total sale consideration of Rs. Two Crores on 23.4.2008, though possession was delivered to the assessee on execution of the power of attorney on 30.3.2008. Since the assessee, has acquired a residential house before

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]

property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income Tax under Section 139 of the Act and that would include extended period to file return in terms of Sub Section 4 of Section 139 of the Act.” The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced as under: “9

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

139/- on the sale of 1000 shares of M/s Systems America India Ltd. It has also been observed that she has shown to incur short term capital loss of R s. 1,70,96,112/- on a/c of 172000 equity shares of M/s Suma Finance Ltd. (C ost Price Rs.101.25 per share and selling price Rs. 1.729 per share). From

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

139/- on the sale of 1000 shares of M/s Systems America India Ltd. It has also been observed that she has shown to incur short term capital loss of R s. 1,70,96,112/- on a/c of 172000 equity shares of M/s Suma Finance Ltd. (C ost Price Rs.101.25 per share and selling price Rs. 1.729 per share). From

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

house property, business, long term capital gains and income from other sources. Notice under section 153A was issued on 22.08.2016 for filing of the return of income which was filed on 31.08.2016 declaring income of Rs.6.83 crores including surrendered long term capital gains of Rs.6.61 crores as income from other sources. The assessee revised the return of income to Rs.7.15

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

USHA MAHAJAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-60(3), NEW DELHI

In the result ITA.No.231/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

house property before the due date of filing the return of income. The Commissions (Appeals) held that the assessee had purchased a new residential property on January 2, 2007, and the due date according to section 139(4) was 8 ITA.Nos.231 & 232/Del./2019 Smt. Usha Mahajan, Delhi. March 31, 2007, and, thus, the assessee had complied with the provisions

USHA MAHAJAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-60(3), NEW DELHI

In the result ITA.No.231/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

house property before the due date of filing the return of income. The Commissions (Appeals) held that the assessee had purchased a new residential property on January 2, 2007, and the due date according to section 139(4) was 8 ITA.Nos.231 & 232/Del./2019 Smt. Usha Mahajan, Delhi. March 31, 2007, and, thus, the assessee had complied with the provisions

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

house property before due date of filing return of income under section 139(1), i.e prior to 31-7-2006 - According to assessee, due date of filing return of income in her case was not as specified in section 13 9

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

house property before due date of filing return of income under section 139(1), i.e prior to 31-7-2006 - According to assessee, due date of filing return of income in her case was not as specified in section 13 9

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

9. A Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Hemant Gupta, J.) was a member, had an occasion to consider the provisions of Section 54(2) of the Act, wherein it has been held that sub- section(4) of Section 139 of the Act is in fact a proviso to Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore