INSTRUMENTATION LABORATORY INDIA PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Instrumentation Laboratory Vs. Dcit India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(2) 1471-1476, 14Th Floor, New Delhi Aggarwal Millennium Tower- 2, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aabci6557N Appellant Respondent

penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is, therefore, prayed that addition made to the returned income be deleted, and interest levied u/s 234B section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order dated 28/12/2016 came to be passed u/s

SHAILENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2012-13

271 AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.03.2017 amounting to Rs. 21,91,130/- when no finding was recorded by him, in that regard during assessment proceedings and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and law on the point, the Ld. CIT(A), has erred

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

KARNA SINGH MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

53A of Transfer of Property Act. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the benefit of indexation should not be disallowed to 3 ITA.No.9729/Del./2019 Shri Karna Singh Mehta, New Delhi. the assessee and why the resulting short term capital gain should not be added to the total income of the assessee. 2.1. The assessee submitted

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 New sub clauses (v) and (vi) have been inserted in section 2(47) to prevent avoidance of the capital gain liability by recourse to transfer of rights in the manner referred to above. The newly inserted sub-clause (vi) of section 2(47) has brought into the ambit of "transfer, the practice

MANJULA SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhrimanjula Sethi Vs. Addl./Joint/Deputy/Assistant L-42A Lajpat Nagar-Ii Commissioner Of Income New Delhi- 110024 Tax/Ito,National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aatps7572E Appellant .. Respondent

section 53A of the "Transfer of Property Act." It is clear that the assessee had not purchased a new asset which is mandatory to claim exemption u/s 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the exemption u/s 54F is not allowable to the assessee. 2.1 The assessee, in its reply, filed her submission. The main points are reproduced below

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 19612 is to be initiated separately." 13. During the appellate proceedings, the ld. AR filed the following written submission before the ld. CIT (A) as extracted from the order: "A sum of Rs.13,57,351 has been added to the income to the assessee. Assessee has sub-letted

M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) are being initiated separately 5. with the above observation, the income of the assessee company is computed as under: A. Income from Business and Profession: Income as declared by the assessee Rs. 1,28,860 Add: As discussed in para 3 above Rs.4,40,663 Rs. 5,69,523 B. Short Term Capital Gain

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for failure to disclose the true particulars of income as mentioned above.” Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO in computing the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.17

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ARIZONA VENUTRES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

53A, 4TH FLOOR, MIRZA GHALIB RITESH STREET KOLKATA, CONSTRUCTION PVT. WEST BENGAL- LTD 700016. 4 AADCR6226K 1,50,00,000 62, RADHA BAZAR STREET, 3RD FLOOR ROOM NO 29, CALCUTTA, RUPAK TRADING WEST BENGAL- PVT. LTD 5 AABCR2787D 700001. 7,50,00,000 P-27, PRINCEP STREET, 3RD SCAN FLOOR, KOLKATA, INFRASTRUCTURE WEST BENGAL- LTD 700072 6 AACCB3214C