MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

house-keeping boy and he was not there at the time when these purchases were made and he was allowed to reside at that premises only in February 2020 onwards which is much after the date when these purchases were made. 65. Similarly, with regard to the statement of Mr. Anil Chander Jain at Dehradun, the appellant company has duly

FASHION GROUP INTERNATIONAL,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT

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

1 A) and 49 of the 1908 Act and at the same time, the transaction would not fall under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act." This case has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case (ii) CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, CIA 15619/2017, dt. 04.10.2017 (SC) “there is no contract

VINIT KUMAR ,MEERUT vs. DCIT,CC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both appeals of the different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

House No.4, Krishna Garden Central Circle, Ganga Nagar, Vs Ghaziabad Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250001 PAN-ARGPK9170J Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv & Ms. Ayushi Gupta, CA Revenue by Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.05.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, These are appeals by two assessees directed against the respective orders

VIJAY KUMAR ,MEERUT vs. DCIT,CC, GZBD

In the result, both appeals of the different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

House No.4, Krishna Garden Central Circle, Ganga Nagar, Vs Ghaziabad Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250001 PAN-ARGPK9170J Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv & Ms. Ayushi Gupta, CA Revenue by Sh. T. Kipgen, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.05.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, These are appeals by two assessees directed against the respective orders

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

house or flat) and owned by a ‘non- natural person’ (NNP). A non-natural person is a corporate entity, such as a company, limited liability partnership, trust or investment scheme. To be classed as a dwelling, the property must be: • Used exclusively or in part as a residence • In the process of being adapted or constructed as a residence

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:-

1,20,000 Second Payment made on 26/05/1998 94,500 First Payment made on 22/ 07/2004 8,35,500 Total Cost of Acquisition of Leasehold 10,50,000 Rights  On 26/11/2015, the physical possession of the plot was allotted.  On 04/02/2016, a Perpetual Lease Deed was executed in conformity with allotment of plot for consideration

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

property sold of Rs.2706370/- which was reduced by Ld CIT on the basis of DVO report when appeal filed against the order to Rs. 283370 /- hereby deleted addition of Rs. Rs. 2423000/-. Section 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act says to impose the penalty if assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such

NINA LUTHRA,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Nina Luthra, F No 20, Sector-37, Vs. Ito, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Ward-1(2), Pan: Actpl6023F Noida (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C at Rs. 1,59,41,035/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee objected to the adoption of stamp duty valuation. The ld AO noted that the assessee has objected at a very late stage and there is no sufficient time left to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer for valuation. He further held that

BHAGVAT SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), BULANDSHAHR

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmabhagvat Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Jai Kisha, Adv, 86, Ward-1(3), Nai Basti, Khurja, Aligarh Bulandshahr (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dbwps8579E

1,56,23,320/- considering the circle rate Rs. 92,72,000/- per Hectare wrongly. Correct Valuation: Value of 1.685 Hectare land sold on date of agreement to sell comes to Rs. 46,62,055/- considering the circle rate Rs. 27,66,798/- per Hectare correctly.” 7. On the other hand the ld DR submitted that there is no error

ANUBHAV KAPOOR,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

1,01,55,000/- 1961 Net Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 4,88,868/- 3.2. The AO noted that the assessee while calculating the LTCG had not adopted the sale consideration of the property as per section 50C of the Act. The AO further noted that the assessee had purchased new residential property for Rs.95,00,000/- and had paid

HARKIRAN COMMAR,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT-10, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalpr. Commissioner Of Mrs. Harkiran Commar Income Tax-10, 28, Poorvi Marg, Vs. New Delhi Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 Pan: Aagpc2911C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sanjiv Chaudhary, Ca Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca & Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Surender Pal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2025 O R D E R

1) Provisions of Section 50C are applicable in this case. (0) Deduction was allowable u/s 54F and not u/s 54 on the incorrect ground that the property sold is "plot of land" as against "Farm House

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

1 (SC) held as under : “Held, (i) that the tenancy right was a capital asset, surrender of the tenancy right was a “transfer” and the consideration received therefor was a capital receipt within the meaning of section 45.” 9.11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saras Metals Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT & Another

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

1 (SC) held as under : “Held, (i) that the tenancy right was a capital asset, surrender of the tenancy right was a “transfer” and the consideration received therefor was a capital receipt within the meaning of section 45.” 9.11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saras Metals Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT & Another

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

1 (SC) held as under : “Held, (i) that the tenancy right was a capital asset, surrender of the tenancy right was a “transfer” and the consideration received therefor was a capital receipt within the meaning of section 45.” 9.11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saras Metals Pvt. Ltd., vs., CIT & Another