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

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 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

MANOJ MITTAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

House property”); Rs. 18,42,000/- (on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act); Rs. 50,000/- (on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Income Tax Act); and Rs. 3,61,646/- (on account of disallowance of brought forward capital loss). However, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed partial relief in respect

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

50C has no role in this case. According to her, full rights including rights to mortgage the property and right to sell the property in case of default of mortgage to the financial institution, were given to the lessee and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the transaction as ‘transfer’ under section 2

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MONI KUMAR SUBBA, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

50C has no role in this case. According to her, full rights including rights to mortgage the property and right to sell the property in case of default of mortgage to the financial institution, were given to the lessee and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the transaction as ‘transfer’ under section 2

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

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

Housing Development Company v. The DCIT (ITA No.38/2014), order of Special Bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 23 taxmann.com 103 (Mum.) (SB) has summarized the legal position. XXX 6. That aforesaid judgment of CIT vs. KABUL CHAWLA (supra) has further been followed in the case of PCIT v. Kusum

YANSH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Shri K. Narasimha Charyshri K. Narasimha Chary Shri K. Narasimha Chary

House No.329, Harijan Basti, Ward Ward-27(3), Ward Ward 27(3), 27(3), 27(3), Village & Post Bijwasan, Village & Post Bijwasan, New Delhi. New Delhi. Village & Village & Post Bijwasan, Post Bijwasan, New Delhi. New Delhi. New Delhi New Delhi – 110 061. New Delhi New Delhi 110 061. 110 061. 110 061. PAN : ACCPY5738K. PAN : ACCPY5738K. PAN : ACCPY5738K. PAN : ACCPY5738K

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

SMT. ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri O. P. Meena

property by adopting deemed sale 2 I.T.A No. 2235/Del/2016 value under section 50C of the Act at a figure of Rs. 64,07,515/- and further to calculate the long term capital gain of Rs. (-) 41,57,485 by adopting full value of consideration received thereby observing that the deduction under section 54F and 54(1 )(a) would

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

SHRI JASTINDER SINGH VEDI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Dcit, Circle-25(1), New Delhi Sh. Jastinder Singh Vedi, 24/55, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi Pan : Aaepv4136E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. R.S. Singhvi & Satyajit Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2011Of Learned Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Lower Authorities Had Erred In Not Appreciating That The Plot Of Land No. A-2/204, Paschim Vihar, Delhi Measuring 167 Sq. Mtrs. Allotted By Dda In Public Auction On 11.3.2002 Was Not Comparable To The First Floor Of House No. 37, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi Especially When The Ground Floor & The Second Floor Of The Said Property Belonged To Others. 2. The Lower Authorities Had Erred In Not Appreciating That The One- Third Share Of The First Floor Of House No. 37, Punjabi Bagh (West) Belonged To The Appellant Whereas Two-Third Share Of The Said Flat Belonged To His Wife & The Long-Term Capital Loss In Respect Of The Two-Third Share From The Sale Of The Said Floor Has Been Accepted By The Department.

House India (P.) Ltd. (supra), that when the Assessing Officer had not shown that the assessee received any consideration other than the consideration mentioned in the sale agreement, reference made to DVO under 7 Section 55A was without jurisdiction. In the instant case, it is evident that the Assessing Officer did not invoke the provision of Section 50C