MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C to Section 56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C to Section 56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C to Section 56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C to Section 56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

50C to Section 56(2)(x). In this regard, it is submitted that ld. CIT(A) could not have changed the section as the power to change any section which was invoked by the AO has not been granted to the CIT(A). iii. None of the authorities referred the matter to the DVO. 87. The issue

CK INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-6(1), DELHI

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

68,000/- on account of \"Long Term Capital Gains\" by adopting the stamp duty value instead of the sales consideration for an immovable property sold. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal held that an adjustment under Section 50C

INDER JEET MALIK ,DELHI vs. ADIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-71(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2019-20

50C(1) can fall within the ambit of adjustments provided under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. It is noticed, the following adjustments can be made while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act: “Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAPID ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

68,34,870 GST on above transfer charge @ 18% 12,30,090 Total Cost 33,18,20,460 Circle rate for land & Building 33,24,05,000 Difference 2,52,80,000 Difference in % of sale consideration 8.2% Page 2 of 11 DCIT Vs Rapid Engineering Co.Pvt Ltd 4. The Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order

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:-

68,50,000 - whereas the property was sold at Rs. 24,00,000/-which attracts provisions of Section 50C

SMT. ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 50C has no effect for calculating exemption u/s 54F. The long term capital gain exemption is admissible u/s 54F(1)(b) of the Act as per working provided by the assessee wherein total taxable gain is Rs.2,68

ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 50C has no effect for calculating exemption u/s 54F. The long term capital gain exemption is admissible u/s 54F(1)(b) of the Act as per working provided by the assessee wherein total taxable gain is Rs.2,68

SUNIL MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblesunil Miglani Vs Dcit Kj-2, Kavi Nagar Central Circle New Delhi Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 50C has no effect for calculating exemption u/s 54F. The long term capital gain exemption is admissible u/s 54F(1)(b) of the Act as per working provided by the assessee wherein total taxable gain is Rs.2,68

FASHION GROUP INTERNATIONAL,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT

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

50C is not tenable. The Section Itself starts with the term ‘transfer by an assessed of a capital asset, being land or building or both/. The language itself is very clear and unambiguous. The provisions of this Section will strictly apply to cases only when there is a transfer of land or building or both. In the present

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as unexplained cash credit on account of sale of shares of M/s Quest Financial Services Ltd. without appreciating the fact that the transaction of sale of shares is not genuine but an arranged deal managed by the assessee. Page 29 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before

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

68,000/-. Ld. AO took note of the provision of Section 50C of the Act and observed that since

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

68,000/-. Ld. AO took note of the provision of Section 50C of the Act and observed that since

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SHIMLA DEVI, NEW DELHI

In the result, we reverse the order of the learned CIT appeal and restore the order of the learned assessing officer; consequently, ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Shimla Devi, Ward-41(3), C-29, New Multan Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Afypd6835R (Appellant) (Respondent)

50C of the act. Therefore, this reason given by the learned CIT appeal is also not sustainable. The learned CIT appeal has also stated that the sub divisional magistrate has held that the plot sold by the assessee are agricultural land because of the reason that addition plots have been held by the sub divisional magistrate to be an agricultural

VINOD KUMAR MEHTA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotraassessment Year : 2013-14 Vinod Kumar Mehta, Ito, Ward- 4(4), K-3/20A, 1St Floor, Gurgaon Vs. Dlf Phase- Ii, Gurgaon. Pan : Ajdpm 5579 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,100/-. As per provisions of section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961, if the consideration declared to be received