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

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

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

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:-

2 of section 50C is for the benefit of the Assessee to safeguard its interest and not to apply stamp duty value on a mechanical basis. 9. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Charm Investment Private Limited vs Pr. CIT (ITA No. 3505/DEI/2019) (Dt. 1/05/2020) he submitted that the Tribunal

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

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

2(47) (v) of the Act, all legal requirements u/s. 53A of the transfer of property Act has to be complied. For non applicability of section 50C of the Act, the learned counsel submitted that in the present case certain rights accrued to the assessee due to earlier agreement to purchase with the owner to the property but the transaction

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

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

50C of the Act, the addition has been rightly sustained. 8. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record the bench is of considered opinion that controversy shrinks to the question what is the crucial date for determining transfer for the purpose of section 2(47) of the Act when the date of agreement for sale of property is different

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]

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 stamp duty of Rs.6,55,000/- on 08.08.2016. The AO on examination on details of payments made to the seller to acquire new residential house property found that the assessee made the payment to the seller

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

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

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

50C of the Act was applied to arrive at a net short term capital gains of Rs.39,04,000, which was then added to the income of the assessee. This was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. On further appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that there were only two properties shown as "stock-in-trade" by the assessee

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

50C of the Act was applied to arrive at a net short term capital gains of Rs.39,04,000, which was then added to the income of the assessee. This was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. On further appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that there were only two properties shown as "stock-in-trade" by the assessee

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

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

50C of the Act was applied to arrive at a net short term capital gains of Rs.39,04,000, which was then added to the income of the assessee. This was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. On further appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that there were only two properties shown as "stock-in-trade" by the assessee

ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

50C of the Act was applied to arrive at a net short term capital gains of Rs.39,04,000, which was then added to the income of the assessee. This was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. On further appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that there were only two properties shown as "stock-in-trade" by the assessee

MANJEET SINGH BALI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manjeet Singh Bali, Vs Ito, C/O-Ravi Kumar & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. Pan-Acepb5753B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2022

House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. PAN-ACEPB5753B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11.05.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

property as per section 50C of the I.T. Act and not as per the share purchase agreement. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not taking into consideration the findings of the AO that the assessee adopted the modus operandi to transfer of shares of a company having only asset of land