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 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 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

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

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

1,66,30,500 Noida Authority transfer charge 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

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

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

1 A) and 49 of the 1908 Act and at the same time, the transaction would not fall under Section 2(47)(v) of the Act." This case has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case (ii) CIT Vs. Balbir Singh Maini, CIA 15619/2017, dt. 04.10.2017 (SC) “there is no contract

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

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

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

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

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 of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not made any disallowance u/s 50C of the Act. She further noted that the assessee got possession of land on 26.11.2015, the lease deed was registered on 21.01.2016 and sold the same

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.

68,687/- adopted by the Assessing Officer. The assessee is in appeal against the additions sustained by the learned CIT(A). 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that for the purpose of capital gain under Section 45 of the Act, computation has been provided under Section 48 of the Act. According to said computation

YANSH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Shri K. Narasimha Charyshri K. Narasimha Chary Shri K. Narasimha Chary

68,41,372/- made by the Assessing Officer as short term capital gain by applying provisions of Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. In the arguments of the assessee, one of the main arguments was that the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (2) of Section

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

1) or 143(3) abated or not within the meaning of second proviso to sec. 153A of the Act. 2003-04 08.09.2003 Yes 143(3) Did not abate From the aforesaid table, it can be gathered that the assessments in the case of the assessee did not abate consequent upon the search within the meaning of second proviso to section

ASHWANI JAIPATY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the Department is

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

68,89,000/-. The fact was confronted to the assessee, who readily offered the difference between Circle Rate and actual sale consideration for taxation vide order sheet noting dated 13.06.2016. Thus, the assessee share @ 18.75% is calculated at 31,66,688/-. Finally, the undisclosed investment in property is found at Rs.20,41,688/- 3 ITA.No.276/Del./2018 Shri Ashwani Jaipaty

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/- Accordingly, notice 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