SMT. RAJESHWARI DEVI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAMLI

In the result, impugned order is quashed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

50C of the Act. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the actual sales consideration received by the assessee is at variance with 2 the sale consideration declared by the assessee in the return of income. Since, the addition has been made by AO invoking deeming section, penalty u/s. 271

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. AO erred in calculating tax and tax demand and thus it is a mistake apparent from record u/s 154 of the Act. 3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant respectfully submits that the Ld. AO erred in holding

KRISHNA DEVI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), GHAZIABAD

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately.” 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated 24/11/2017 and sustained the addition, further directed the AO to re-compute the capital gain

MANJEET SINGH BALI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manjeet Singh Bali, Vs Ito, C/O-Ravi Kumar & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. Pan-Acepb5753B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2022

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for considering the value assessed by stamp duty authority as deemed consideration for computation of capital gain on sale of property are subjective to the facts and merits of the case. That the Assessing Authority could have referred the matter to the valuation officer u/s 50C(2) of the Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI vs. TANYA JAISWAL, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2) and 142(1) and served on the assessee through ITBA. In response, the assessee submitted relevant details and clarifications from time to time. The return of income u/s 139 of the Act was filed on 14.01.2022 declaring income of Rs.6,54,15,120/-. 3. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with section 153A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. DIVINE IFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and facts of the case that there is actual loss of revenue. 3. The order of Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds

SIGMA PARADISE,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and response filed by the assessee as reproduced by AO is reproduced below; “1. The land (sold Property) was gone under compulsory Provisions of Section 50C of the Act as state Government initiated acquisition proceedings on 16.10.2004 under section 4/17 of land acquisition Act 1894 vide extraordinary gazette No 2679/9-A-3-2004-90

SH. RAJESH KAKKAR,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

u/s. 148 of the Act dated 25.03.2021 was issued and response filed by the assessee as reproduced by AO is reproduced below; “1. The land (sold Property) was gone under compulsory Provisions of Section 50C of the Act as state Government initiated acquisition proceedings on 16.10.2004 under section 4/17 of land acquisition Act 1894 vide extraordinary gazette No 2679/9-A-3-2004-90

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

271 (SC), it was held that where there is failure or inability of authorities to frame a regular assessment after earlier assessment is set aside or nullified, tax deposited by an assessee by way of advance tax or self-assessment tax, or tax deducted at source is not liable to be refunded to assessee, since its retention by revenue would

VIKAS SINGHAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Vikas Singhal, Vs Ito, B-2323, 2Nd Floor, Dsidc Indl.Area, Ward-35(5), Narela, New Delhi-110040. New Delhi. Pan-Fcsps5487J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gaurav Pahuja, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.10.2023

271(1)(c) of the Act by AO ignoring the show cause reply as well as the bona-fide disclosure made by the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in holding that the assessee did not seek protection under Section 50C(2

UNITECH RESIDENTIAL RESORTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

50C of IT Act, is misplaced and untenable as, for business transactions also, on the date of sale/transfer of business asset, being land of any other asset, the fair market value has to be adopted to compute the profits and gains of assessee. Here also, being a real estate developer, the appellant has transferred the pieces of land

UNITECH REALITY PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

50C of IT Act, is misplaced and untenable as, for business transactions also, on the date of sale/transfer of business asset, being land of any other asset, the fair market value has to be adopted to compute the profits and gains of assessee. Here also, being a real estate developer, the appellant has transferred the pieces of land

RAJO DEVI,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year 2010-11 Smt. Rajo Devi, The Income Tax Officer, W/O. Reshram, Ward-32(1), Room No.1804, 76, Asola Village, Vs. Fatehpur Beri, 11Th Floor, E-2 Block, Civic New Delhi – 110 074. Centre, New Delhi–110 001. Pan Atwpr3396M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ca & Shri Pawan Kumar, Ca For Revenue : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Dr

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act separately. 2.1. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 11.09.2018 confirmed the addition made by the A.O. after considering the remand reports from the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition made

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

u/s 80IA of the Act\naccount of transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds

H B EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

penalty notice u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 4 The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 9. Before the appellate proceedings could start, the PCIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and served the following notice: “NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

u/s 80IA of the Act\naccount of transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

u/s 80IA of the Act\naccount of transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42 \nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

u/s 80IA of the Act\naccount of transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission