MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek was much higher than the face value, considering the profit earning capacity, dividend track record and net 8 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 worth of that company. Even the breakup value (book value) of shares was much higher than face value

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek was much higher than the face value, considering the profit earning capacity, dividend track record and net 8 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 worth of that company. Even the breakup value (book value) of shares was much higher than face value

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek was much higher than the face value, considering the profit earning capacity, dividend track record and net 8 ITAs No.5512, 5513, 5546 & 5574/DEL/2011 worth of that company. Even the breakup value (book value) of shares was much higher than face value

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The assessee, a private limited company incorporated on 04.01.1992 filed its return of income for assessment year 2007-2008, on 30.01.2008 declaring NIL income after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,15,666/-. The assessment was taken up under Section 143 (3) by the A.O. The assessee had purchased during the period

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

68 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The assessee, a private limited company incorporated on 04.01.1992 filed its return of income for assessment year 2007-2008, on 30.01.2008 declaring NIL income after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.3,15,666/-. The assessment was taken up under Section 143 (3) by the A.O. The assessee had purchased during the period

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

ITO, WARD- 41(1), NEW DELHI vs. AASTHA GOEL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 41(1), Aastha Goel, New Delhi. 28/42, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. New Delhi.

50C(2) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, provisions of the Act and respectfully following the judicial pronouncements mentioned above in my opinion the addition of Rs.1,02,50,000/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act on account of difference between value of property as per stamp valuation and value as per purchase deed

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

68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAMSUNG ESTATES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. M/S. Samsung Estates Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Room No. 306, C.R. Building, 1095, Sector A, Pocket - A, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Vasant Kunj, New Delhi Pan : Aabcs5957L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 50C of the Act under which the Assessing Officer can replace the full value of consideration with fair market value of the property. In view of above, the finding of the Ld. CIT-(A) on the issue in dispute is well reasoned and no interference on our part is required. Accordingly, we uphold the same and ground

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)

68,200/- under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gains’. Before ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the Assessing Officer had a choice under sub-section 50C(1) to refer the matter before the Valuation Officer and, therefore, he should have done that since the circle rate fixed was not final. Ld. CIT(A) pointed out that