MONI KUMAR SUBBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-08, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 271D of the Act admitted these papers but he stated that these payments are for the purpose of agreement to sell. The relevant paragraph of reply which is reproduced in paragraph 4(c) of the penalty order, reads as under:- “c) That the above documents of payment made by Sh. Karan Luthra pertain to ‘Agreement to Sell’ of Subba

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-08, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 271D of the Act admitted these papers but he stated that these payments are for the purpose of agreement to sell. The relevant paragraph of reply which is reproduced in paragraph 4(c) of the penalty order, reads as under:- “c) That the above documents of payment made by Sh. Karan Luthra pertain to ‘Agreement to Sell’ of Subba

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-08, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singhshri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 271D of the Act admitted these papers but he stated that these payments are for the purpose of agreement to sell. The relevant paragraph of reply which is reproduced in paragraph 4(c) of the penalty order, reads as under:- “c) That the above documents of payment made by Sh. Karan Luthra pertain to ‘Agreement to Sell’ of Subba

RAKSHITA PATEL ,DELHI vs. AO WARD 49(2), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

property. The assessee has submitted that she had purchased a residential plot of Rs. 45,00,000/- and spent an amount of Rs. 1,65,00,000/-for construction the house. The AO has added an amount of Rs. 8,25,000/-, which is 5% of the amount of Rs. 1,65,00.000/-, without making any enquiry. On perusal

SONIA MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 69, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sonia Malik, Vs. Jcit, 229, Ground Floor, Range-69, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anqpm9150J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th Septemfebr, 2018 Passed By The Cit(A)-21, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Various Grounds Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.3,25,000/- Levied By The Jcit U/S 271D Of The It Act.

house property for her own living, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the provisions of section

KULDEEP SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

house property. 4. Though Ld. DR has defended the order of Ld. Tax Authorities below we find that there was no question of any undisclosed source amount transacted between the husband and wife. There was sufficient material to establish that 3 the amount which the wife had given was from explained source and was used for the common purpose. Merely

JAGJIT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house need not be purchased by assessee in his own name.” 6.4. It is not in dispute that the assessee filed original return of income under Section 139(1) on 27th June, 2008 for the A.Y. 2008 2009 under appeal. The Judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Gurnam Singh (supra), Dated

INDERJEET KAUR BHATIA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

House No. G-16, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/- during the instant year and the capital gain on the same was also disclosed in the Income tax Return. It was argued that the Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiry in respect of the AIR information as no property was purchased during the year

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

house property, and thus the AO brought to tax LTCG and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further takes note of Bangalore ITAT ruling in case of P.M.Abdulla, wherein it was clarified that the said

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

271D of the Act by observing as under: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and we are of the view that the facts of the present case and the facts of the case referred to ITAT Kolkata in the case of Dr.B.G.Panda are identical . The Tribunal in the aforesaid case held as follows :- "Section 269SS is applicable

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

271D of the Act by observing as under: “6. We have heard the rival submissions and we are of the view that the facts of the present case and the facts of the case referred to ITAT Kolkata in the case of Dr.B.G.Panda are identical . The Tribunal in the aforesaid case held as follows :- "Section 269SS is applicable

MR. SUNIL KUMAR SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss S. Kambleassessment Year: 2007-08

house. The wife of the assessee only helped the assessee in acquiring the two properties for benefit of the whole family. Out of these two properties, one was for the residence of the family and the other was for the office of the assessee. These life-long assets were purchased from the pooled resources of family members. It was further