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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, 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

house” property. Thus, on the basis of the computation of the total income furnished by the assessee, the learned assessing officer is of prima facie of the view that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act with respect to 2 properties situated at two different places, which is not permissible. Thus on this issue too, we find that

DCIT INTERNATIONA TAXATION CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CHARU AGARWAL, GURGAON

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18 Charu Agarwal, Vs Dcit (International Taxation), Tower B-3, Flat 1203, Circle Gurgaon. Parsvnath Exotica, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Aclpa8443J Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit (International Taxation), Vs. Charu Agarwal, Circle Gurgaon. Tower B-3, Flat 1203, Parsvnath Exotica, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Aclpa8443J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th May, 2020 Of

house with land appurtenant thereto owned by the appellant and as claimed at Rs.74,50,516/- as determined by the Approved Valuer overlooking the provisions of section 55 and 55A, thereby upholding the erroneous computation of capital gains, as computed by the AO, the indexed cost of the property

CHARU AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE, GURGAON

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2017-18 Charu Agarwal, Vs Dcit (International Taxation), Tower B-3, Flat 1203, Circle Gurgaon. Parsvnath Exotica, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Aclpa8443J Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit (International Taxation), Vs. Charu Agarwal, Circle Gurgaon. Tower B-3, Flat 1203, Parsvnath Exotica, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon (Haryana). Pan: Aclpa8443J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri M.K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th May, 2020 Of

house with land appurtenant thereto owned by the appellant and as claimed at Rs.74,50,516/- as determined by the Approved Valuer overlooking the provisions of section 55 and 55A, thereby upholding the erroneous computation of capital gains, as computed by the AO, the indexed cost of the property

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

House Property". The judgment has been accepted by the Board. 3. In view of the above, it is now a settled position that in the case of an undertaking which develops, develops and operates or maintains and operates an industrial park/SEZ notified in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by the Government, the income from letting out of premises/developed

PRAMILA GUPTA ,GURUGRAM vs. CIT(A)-42, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

house property no. C-44 South Extn., Part-II, New Delhi by taking the fair market value as on 01/04/1981 of the said property at Rs 17,50,850/- (as assessed by the Valuation Officer under section 55A

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:-

55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 3.3 That observation with regard to applicability of section 50C is merely on the basis of surmises & conjectures and not sustainable under law. 4 That order u/s 263 is not sustainable on facts and under the law as the same is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue

YOGRAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 47(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

house property as per the provisions of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who concurred with the observation of the Assessing Officer that the valuation made by the registered valuer as fabricated. 5. Before us, during the hearing, the ld. AR referred to the submission dated

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.S. CHAWLA & SONGS (HUF), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

55A of the Act which was received after the completion of reassessment proceedings, which is highly arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the act of the Ld. Assessing Officer to convert the reassessment proceedings made on 3 ITA. 2724 /Del/2015 AND C.O. 456/Del/2015 protective

MOHAN GARG,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramohan Garg Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2 H. No. 905, Sector-15, Faridabad S.O. Faridabad, Haryana Sector-16A Faridabad, Haryana – 121003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahlpg2577N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025

property.” Sir, the total cost of Total Total Difference construction in expenditure estimated by House No. 887 and declared by the Valuation Cell 888 jointly done by assessee Sh. Mohan Garg and Sh. Gopal Garg. The yearwise incurred on construction of these house is as under: Financial Year

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD

House Property and Income from Business. The assessee company was engaged in the business of sale & purchase, construction, lease or rent of property. During the year the assessee has received rent for three months only and thereafter the property was sold to 2012:DHC:1499-DB ITA 179/2011 Page 3 of 19 the tenant who was occupying the property. Profit

VINOD ANAND,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II,, FARIDABAD

The Appeal is dismissed ex parte

Bench: Dr. B.R.R.Kumar & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Vinod Anand Vs. Dcit, House No. 2288, Circle-Ii, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property. The Ld. AR through the rejoinder had stated that in the purchase deed it has been mentioned that the appellant has purchased the vacant plot whereas in the sale deed it has been mentioned that the appellant has sold land with building. It was stated that a valuation report has been furnished before the AO in the support

PREM LATA GUPTA ,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , KARNAL

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Prem Lata Gupta, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C-5/2A, Opp Cc Colony, Income Tax, Rana Pratap Bagh, North Delhi Central Circle Pin: 1100 07 Karnal. Pan: Aadpl3023F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) are in violation of the statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts