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

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

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ASHWANI KUMAR MALIK, MEERUT

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property during the relevant assessment year. The return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 was filed by the respondent assessee on 08/03/2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,80,148/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that respondent assessee has sold commercial premises

LATE SMT. GIRIRAJ KAUR L/H SRI RAVINDER GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

55A w.e.f. 01.07.2012 was not applicable to the present case as it pertains to 2009-10. j) That the Ld. Pr. CIT has misdirected herself in ignoring the material fact that all possible inquiries had been made by the AO during the assessment proceeding and thereafter had framed the assessment. In such circumstances invoking the powers

MANOJ MITTAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

House Property”, in the hands of assessee in respect of these properties. However, the Ld. CIT(A) took the view that the assessee was to be treated as owner of the properties u/s 269 UA of Income Tax Act as the assessee had entered into the lease agreement with Sh. N.M. Mittal for a period of 30 years in respect

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

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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S R. INFOSYSTEMS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit Vs R. Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3, Room No. 332, B-319, Okhla Industrial Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccr8053M Appellant Respondent

55A for ascertainment of fair market value of the property. When the registration value has not the disputed question, now, at this stage, it is not permissible for the assessee to contend that the registration value is excessive and disproportionate to the market value of the property. In the absence of contra material, the deemed full value of consideration

RAJASTHAN CLUB,,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 Vs. Adit(E), Inv. Circle-Ii, New Rajasthan Club, Dp-22, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaatr6043G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Gautam Jain & P.K. Kamal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 22/03/2010 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2002-03 Raising Following Grounds: “ 1. The Appellant, Rajasthan Club Is Engaged In Charitable Activity During The Financial Year 2001-02. The Appellant Is A Regular Income Tax Assessee & Assessed To Income Tax For The Last Several Years. All Income, Assets & Investments Are Disclosed To Income Tax Department In Regular Income Tax Returns. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Incorrect & Unjustified In Making A Reference Of The Property In This Case To The Valuation Officer Without Any Reason Basis & Evidence.

55A of the Act, issued by the Assistant Valuation Officer dated 24/03/2005 addressed to the assessee club, he had estimated an interim value of the flat sold by the assessee club at Rs.13,93,400/- and the final value was yet to come. On the basis of interim finding of the Asst. Valuation Officer, the Assessing Officer issued a final

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

55A of the Act. Section 45 defines capital gains and sub-section (1) thereof reads as under: “Section 45 (1) (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer 737 of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

55A of the Act. Section 45 defines capital gains and sub-section (1) thereof reads as under: “Section 45 (1) (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer 737 of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SURREN CHANANA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed and

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2009-10 Mrs. Surren Chanana, Income Tax Officer, L-1/11, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs. Ward 24(1), New Delhi New Delhi

house to Rs.1,05,75,256/- against the indexed cost of Rs.1,25,06,557/- as claimed by the appellant. The ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that the appellant has old immovable property at Noida during the year under consideration for Rs.3.75 crores. She had acquired a plot of land during F.Y. 1982-83 from Noida Authority

MRS. SURREN CHANANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed and

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2009-10 Mrs. Surren Chanana, Income Tax Officer, L-1/11, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs. Ward 24(1), New Delhi New Delhi

house to Rs.1,05,75,256/- against the indexed cost of Rs.1,25,06,557/- as claimed by the appellant. The ld. AR of the appellant has submitted that the appellant has old immovable property at Noida during the year under consideration for Rs.3.75 crores. She had acquired a plot of land during F.Y. 1982-83 from Noida Authority

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

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

RAM PRAKASH & CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Prakash & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito 4/17-B, Mgf House, Ward 15(2), Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Central Revenue Bldg., Pan No. Aaacr0078A New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Sh.Ajay Wadhwa, Ca Ms. Rashi, Ca Respondent/Revenue By Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2018 Order Per Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

House, Ward 15(2), Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Central Revenue Bldg., PAN No. AAACR0078A New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant/Assessee by Sh.Ajay Wadhwa, CA Ms. Rashi, CA Respondent/Revenue by Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 20.06.2018 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 03.12.2012 passed