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

53A of The Transfer of Property Act. Assessee further submitted that though capital gain accrued in assessment year 2008 – 09, would be chargeable only in the year when the actual sale deed is executed i.e. Page 7 of 53 assessment year 2010 – 11. Assessee submitted a revised computation of total income for assessment year 2010 – 11 , whereby the indexed cost

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

53A of The Transfer of Property Act. Assessee further submitted that though capital gain accrued in assessment year 2008 – 09, would be chargeable only in the year when the actual sale deed is executed i.e. Page 7 of 53 assessment year 2010 – 11. Assessee submitted a revised computation of total income for assessment year 2010 – 11 , whereby the indexed cost

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

53A ofthe Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) From such handover letter, it will be observed that the developer has confirmed that no outstanding dues were payable in respect of such flat. This proves that the prescribed condition as per section 54 for making reinvestment in another residential house

AMULYA GUPTA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

53A of the transfer of tm properties Act, 1882. As the transfer took place on the date of Agreement datec 26/05/2011, which is more than before 3 years from the date of sale i.e. 19/02/2.015. therefore disallowance of capital gain under section 54 is bad in law and unjustified. Your honor, in our support in this condition we quote

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. ASHOK KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6105/Del/2017: Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Ashok Kumar, Central Circle-26, 13, Ashoka Avenue, Dlf Farms, New Delhi-110055 Chattarpur, New Delhi-110074 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepc1877D

house property u/s 24(a) of the I.T. Act. As per provisions of section 56 of the I.T. Act, income for sub-letting is considered to be income from other sources. Thus, the standard deduction of 30% on rental income claimed by the assessee is incorrect and unjustified. Hence, the standard deducting of Rs.13,57,351/- claimed by the assessee

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Supreme Court way back in 1979 in CIT V. T.N Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Taxman 541, however, gave it a wider meaning and it was held that the payment made for execution of release deed by the brother thereby joint ownership became separate ownership for price paid would be covered

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

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

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 could not completed due to some restrictions of competent authority

ITO, WARD-32(4), NEW DELHI vs. SWATI OBEROI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

53A of transfer of immovable property act are not satisfied. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition levied by the AO disallowing the deduction us 54F of the Act disregarding the report of Inspector wherein it has been reported that the property In Issue was in the possession of Smt. Purnima Mehra.” 2. Briefly stated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

houses to Kedarnath Gupta. It is, therefore, not a relevant consideration that there was no admission by the seller of the property that he received on-monies from the buyer. The non-seizure of any substantial amount of cash during the search is also not relevant in the case of the buyer of the property. He has actually parted with

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

53A of the\nTransfer of Property Act, 1882(4 of 1882).\" In this case the\nagreement to sell dated 21.02.2005, which has been upheld\nby Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its judgement dated\n01.05.2013. Accordingly, the date of purchase of the property at\nN-1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi is 21.02.2005.\n2. 4. In the course of assessment

ANJU AHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

53A, Kirti Nagar, admeasuring 193.33 sq. yards. Two registries were carried out for acquisition of respective share in one common and conjoint property held by two different persons. The relevant background facts was narrated to submit that this property was initially acquired by one Shri Joginder Singh on 06.08.1960 who got it constructed from its own sources

The Commissioner of Income Tax II

Appeal is dismissed

house so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising

VISHAL AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. PR,CIT, NOIDA

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 803/Del/2022, A.Y. 2012-13

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Therefore, in view of the above facts and the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) are not applicable to the said transaction of Rs. 60,00,000/, as embodied in the so-called Agreement to sell dated 05.08.2009. 4.3 Even otherwise

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term for which

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term for which

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882). Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause, a lease which provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term or terms shall be deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the term for which

ANSHU DHAWAN,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmananshu Dhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.933, Sector 17B, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aggpd5365D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R

House No.933, Sector 17B, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (PAN : AGGPD5365D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA Shri Ankur Agarwal, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Housing Board's case (supra) also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Bikram Singh v. Land Aquisition Collector [1996] 89 Taxman 119/1997] 224 ITR 551 where the interest paid to persons whose land had been compulsorily acquired was held to be a revenue receipt (and not a capital receipt) and therefore not falling within