SMT. NEELAM HANDA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishineelam Handa, Ito, C-7/7, Ground Floor, Ward-20(4), Vs. Model Town-Iii, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abgph5388D (Appellant) (Respondent)

property for claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bombay Housing Corporation [2002] 81 ITD 545 (Mumbai). But, this case pertains to the exemption claimed under section 54E

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishidevender Kumar Aggarwal, Cit 1533, Ranu Bagh, New Delhi Delhi-Ix, New Delhi Vs. Pan:Aaapa1974F (Appellant) (Respondent)

property on or before 28th of March 2009. The investment made by the assessee was on 31st of March 2009. The circular submitted by the appellant before us is with respect to the provisions of section 54E of the income tax act. However, we could also note that the provisions of section 54 E and section 54EC have the similar

NILANJAN CHAUDHARI,GURGAON vs. ITO, CIRCLE- 3, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

54E of the Act in respect of Long Term Capital Gain derived by him when the entire sale consideration has been reinvested by him in the new house property. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a geophysicist and was employed with Cairn Energy Ltd. deriving income from salary, house

SMT. KIRAN KAMRA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Kiran Kamra, Vs. Ito, 2286, Hudson Line, Ward-36(1), G.T.B. Nagar, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan: Aaqpk8729C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri V. Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2019 Order

house property at Plot No.24, Block-UP, Pitampura, Delhi. Since the deal could not materialize, after issue of two legal notices the assessee got back Rs.55 lakhs from the above two sellers on 21st February, 2012 and, thereafter, the amount was invested in REC Bonds on 21st March, 2012. He submitted that the exemption granted u/s 54 and 54EC

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any person receives at any time during any previous year any money or other assets under

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any person receives at any time during any previous year any money or other assets under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset

ANGEELA VASANDANI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2010-11 Angeela Vasandani, Vs Dcit, 93, Pocket-Ii, Jasola, International Taxation, New Delhi. Circle-3(1)(1), New Delhi. Pan: Ahtpv3859Q

house property located at B-59, May Fair Garden, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, which was jointly held by the assessee with her brother Shri Anil T. Kriplani. The same property was purchased/acquired in 1975 and the assessee has claimed indexed cost of acquisition to the tune of Rs.6,38,32,000/- against the sale consideration of Rs.15

M/S. ONKARESHWAR PROPERTIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

properties, the manner of its disposal and frequency and multiplicity of transaction proves that the appellant was carrying on trading activity and the transactions are adventure in the nature of trade. Therefore, the income from sale of land is to be assessed as business income.” 5. Thereafter, she has also referred to various judgments to hold that the transaction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ONKARESHWAR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Properties Pvt. Ltd. account it is supposed to include every type of income not only the business income. 'On the contrary, as rightly argued by the learned AR, the profit and loss account supports the contention of the assessee that it has not classified the land as purchase and sale as is done while doing trading. It is only