SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

35. Learned authorised representative reiterated the original submission made by him with respect to the availability of deduction u/s 54EC of the act and for the purpose of deduction Under Section 54 of the income tax act, he relied on the decision of the honourable madras High Court. Queries by the Bench 36. Coordinate bench then raised the query

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

35. Learned authorised representative reiterated the original submission made by him with respect to the availability of deduction u/s 54EC of the act and for the purpose of deduction Under Section 54 of the income tax act, he relied on the decision of the honourable madras High Court. Queries by the Bench 36. Coordinate bench then raised the query

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, purchased and acquired by Smt Alka Rajvansh W/o Shri Homi Rajvansh, in the name of her company M/s Mahanivesh Oil and Foods Pvt Ltd, against the consideration value of ₹ 1,35,00,000/- excluding stamp duty and Corpn. tax of ₹ 10,80,000/- is the Proceeds of Crime, which is likely to be concealed

CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

House Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, Sir, LPA 134/2013 Page 12 of 60 Please refer to your passport application dated 22.07.2008, on the basis of which you were issued passport bearing No. Z-1784222 dated 30.07.2008 by this office. It is informed by the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai that a complaint dated 16.9.2010 under section 13 of FEMA

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

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

housing all other assets i.e. plant and machinery etc. So, the allegation is totally out of context. 6 Explanation 3 of section 43(1) requires the AO to determine the actual cost at such an amount as the AO may determine having regard to all the ITA No.316/Del/2013 circumstances of the case. The AO has adopted WDV of the previous

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

housing all other assets i.e. plant and machinery etc. So, the allegation is totally out of context. 6 Explanation 3 of section 43(1) requires the AO to determine the actual cost at such an amount as the AO may determine having regard to all the ITA No.316/Del/2013 circumstances of the case. The AO has adopted WDV of the previous

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

housing all other assets i.e. plant and machinery etc. So, the allegation is totally out of context. 6 Explanation 3 of section 43(1) requires the AO to determine the actual cost at such an amount as the AO may determine having regard to all the ITA No.316/Del/2013 circumstances of the case. The AO has adopted WDV of the previous

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

housing all other assets i.e. plant and machinery etc. So, the allegation is totally out of context. 6 Explanation 3 of section 43(1) requires the AO to determine the actual cost at such an amount as the AO may determine having regard to all the ITA No.316/Del/2013 circumstances of the case. The AO has adopted WDV of the previous

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MANUPATRA INFORMATION SOLUTION

The appeal is disposed of declaring the law as above and setting aside

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

property. But, no less important, copyright is deeply rooted in our conception of ourselves as individuals with at least a modest grade of singularity, some degree of personality. And it is associated with our sense of privacy and our conviction, at least in theory, that it is essential to limit the power of the State. We are not ready

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) vs. GE CALEDONIAN LTD

Bench: The Learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Ncdrc) Against The Petitioner Lucina Land Development Ltd. & Others By 51 Allotees Of Flats In A Project Of The Petitioners, Titled ―Indiabulls Greens Panvel‖ (―The Project‖, Hereinafter). The Complaint, Preferred Under Section Digitally Signed By:Sunil Singh Negi Signing Date:02.05.2022 15:58:14 Signature Not Verified

Section 35(1)(c) of the 2019 Act, on behalf of and for the benefit of more than 1000 purchasers. Aggrieved by the said decision, Brigade Enterprises, the builder, appealed to the Supreme Court. 34. The residential complex in question comprised of over 1134 apartments. The 91 complainants before the learned NCDRC had purchased 51 apartments. They contended that they

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

35(2)(iv) of the Act while computing business profit and loss. Secondly, the Supreme Court was not concerned with the case of a charitable trust/institution, and the question as to whether income under the head "profits and gains of business" should be computed on commercial principles in order to determine the amount of income available for application for charitable

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

Housing Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ; 441 ITR 285(del)  Devanshu Infin Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center Delhi ;284 Taxman 36  Ramprastha Buildwell (P.) Ltd. Vs. National E Assessment Center, Delhi; 283 Taxman 235 13  KRS Home Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre ;283 Taxman 413  Umkal Healthcare (P.) Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. SURPLUS AND SECTION 47(iv) 2.1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the appellant's claim that the surplus of Rs. 70. 06 crores arising on transfer of its capital asset namely infrastructure assets to its wholly owned subsidiary, M/s Ansal API Infrastructure

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. SURPLUS AND SECTION 47(iv) 2.1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the appellant's claim that the surplus of Rs. 70. 06 crores arising on transfer of its capital asset namely infrastructure assets to its wholly owned subsidiary, M/s Ansal API Infrastructure

M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

House Property. SURPLUS AND SECTION 47(iv) 2.1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the appellant's claim that the surplus of Rs. 70. 06 crores arising on transfer of its capital asset namely infrastructure assets to its wholly owned subsidiary, M/s Ansal API Infrastructure

SH. ADARSH KUMAR SWARUP,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

iv) of this sub-section. Perusal of documents submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceeding it is noticed that the property in question was purchased by the assessee's grand mother Smt. Jyotsna Kumari Swarup before 1.4.1981 as no date of purchase is mentioned in her Will dated 15.1.1985. Hence, for the purpose of cost of acquisition

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

house property of Rs. 79,71,600/- purchased by the assessee during the year can be allowed to the assessee. 3. That the action of the CIT(A) is vitiated in law as no show cause notice required to be given u/s 251(1)(2) of the IT Act has been issued before making enhancement u/s 251(1