ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

property” (hereafter in this section referred to as original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

property” (hereafter in this section referred to as original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

property” (hereafter in this section referred to as original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

house property is also disclosed to the department. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or if the assessee fails to offer an explanation that is not substantiated and assessee fails to prove that such explanation was bonafide. The AO has wrongly invoked the provisions of Explanation 5 to impose penalty

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT MEERA DEVI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

house property is also disclosed to the department. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or if the assessee fails to offer an explanation that is not substantiated and assessee fails to prove that such explanation was bonafide. The AO has wrongly invoked the provisions of Explanation 5 to impose penalty

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AJAY KAILA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is also

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Vs. Ajay Kalia, Circle-32(1), 128/B/1, Village Kilokari, New Delhi. Near Ashram, New Delhi. Pan: Aacpk5645F Co No.254/Del/2014 (Ita No.245/Del/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11

5 CO No.253/Del/2014 can be filed by the other side, on receipt of notice of appeal having been filed by the appealing party, on any issue de hors the issued raised by the appealing party. On filing, a CO assumes the character of an appeal, which is apparent from section 253(4), which provides that: `such memorandum shall be disposed

ACIT, CIRCLE- 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. PLAZA PARTNERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13

5 ITA No.4763/Del./2019 house property income. In support of such contention, he furnished the copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal in assessment years 2008- 09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. 6. Learned Departmental Representative having perused the orders of the Tribunal fairly agreed that the issue is squarely covered by the earlier decisions of the Tribunal

MANISHA JUNEJA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimanisha Juneja Sawhney, Vs. The Cit, W-31, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi International Taxation-3, Pan: Bjgps5452N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property of Rs. 445200 shown in original assessment order and income under head other sources shown of INR 323291 in original assessment order which remained unchanged in order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 263 of income tax act. Therefore, he submitted that there is no error in order of learned assessing officer with respect to above

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

253 CTR 559 (Delhi), interpreted the applicability of Expln. 5 to Section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Where in compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other sources, i.e. rent from house property

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MENARINI RAUNAQ PHARMA LTD.

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

property documents, the degrees and related information is also in public domain. Though original degree certificate is given to the candidate, the authentication of the same along with details is available in the register. There is no provision, rule or regulation made by the university authorizing it to keep the degree related information as secret and prohibit the access

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. NOKIA SOLUTIONS & NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS, NOKIA SIEMENS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

property documents, the degrees and related information is also in public domain. Though original degree certificate is given to the candidate, the authentication of the same along with details is available in the register. There is no provision, rule or regulation made by the university authorizing it to keep the degree related information as secret and prohibit the access

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House at Dehradun 35,469 iii) Property at Mussorie 2,19,542 Total 2,89,279 3.1 That there is no material or valid basis adopted by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to enhance the annual value declared by the appellant and in absence thereof, addition sustained is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3.2 That while upholding the addition