SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Department has also not brought any evidence contrary to the fact. The registration with GDA is not the registration as contemplated u/s 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, in view of the above facts and the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of section

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Department has also not brought any evidence contrary to the fact. The registration with GDA is not the registration as contemplated u/s 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, in view of the above facts and the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of section

PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Department has also not brought any evidence contrary to the fact. The registration with GDA is not the registration as contemplated u/s 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, in view of the above facts and the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of section

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

68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit holding that the investment made by 4 I.T.As.1428 & 1429/D/2016 different corporate concerns in OFCDs (Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures) issued by the assessee company have not been satisfactorily explained. 4. As noted by the Assessing Officer, during the year, the assessee-company has received 0% OFCDs amounting to Rs.151

ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

68. Rafiq allegedly confessed that he had “concealed amphetamine/Ketamine given by salim bhai” in the inner layer of bags as directed to him by one Salim Bhai. 69. Rafiq was questioned by NCB as who he had tied up in Chennai and he responded by giving Mushahid Ali’s name. He further stated that he knew Mushahid Ali since last

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 vs. CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

68. Rafiq allegedly confessed that he had “concealed amphetamine/Ketamine given by salim bhai” in the inner layer of bags as directed to him by one Salim Bhai. 69. Rafiq was questioned by NCB as who he had tied up in Chennai and he responded by giving Mushahid Ali’s name. He further stated that he knew Mushahid Ali since last

ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RCUBE PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma Ita No. 6879/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16

53A of the transfer of property act clearly lay down the Principle that if the property is transfer under a lease for the period extending 12 years than it is covered under the definition of transfer. Further as per the provisions of section 27(iiib) a person who acquires any rights (excluding any rights by way of a lease

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

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

53A after 2001 unless the said contract is registered. This being the case and it being clear that the said JDA was never registered, since the JDA has no efficacy in the eye of law, obviously no “transfer" can be said to have taken place under the aforesaid document. Since we are deciding this case on this legal ground

ANSHU DHAWAN,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmananshu Dhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.933, Sector 17B, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aggpd5365D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R

68,54,215/-. After the demise of assessee’s husband, the allotment of the said property was transferred to the assessee’s name by the developer. Further AO observed that the copy of executed registered agreement to sale dated 15.07.2021 by which assessee had mutually agreed for nomination/transfer of the above said 3 immovable property to Rajat Likhyani

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

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

68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 35 of 48 had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement, vide letters dated November 24, 1998, and March 11, 1999, during the course of assessment proceedings. However

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 35 of 48 had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement, vide letters dated November 24, 1998, and March 11, 1999, during the course of assessment proceedings. However

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 35 of 48 had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement, vide letters dated November 24, 1998, and March 11, 1999, during the course of assessment proceedings. However

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he 2012:DHC:5366-DB ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 35 of 48 had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement, vide letters dated November 24, 1998, and March 11, 1999, during the course

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 35 of 48 had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement, vide letters dated November 24, 1998, and March 11, 1999, during the course of assessment proceedings. However

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he 2012:DHC:5366-DB ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 35 of 48 had failed to displace. The assessee retracted from the said statement, vide letters dated November 24, 1998, and March 11, 1999, during the course

M/S. WEST COAST LANDBASE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 West Coast Landbase Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A_68, Shivalik, Ward 18(3), Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi-110017 (Pan: Aaacw6160C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Advocate Respondent By : Shri K. Tewari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.10.2018

68 of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR further submitted that the method of accounting being followed by the assessee was correct inasmuch as section 53A

ITO, SONEPAT vs. SH. DHARAMPAL, SONEPAT

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs Dharampal, Ward-1, S/O Shri Gugan Ram, Sonepat. Vill. Revali, Sonepat. Pan: Azupd1215B Co No.151/Del/2018 (Ita No.2569/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dharampal, Vs. Ito, S/O Shri Gugan Ram, Ward-1, Vill. Revali, Sonepat. Sonepat. Pan: Azupd1215B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 16.02.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak (Hereinafter Co No.151/Del/2018 Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.215/2013-14 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 25.03.2013 Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-3, Sonepat (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection.

68 is connected with HUF & agricultural land, making the decision ambiguous. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law & on facts in deciding that Capital Gain would arise in the assessment year 2010-2011 instead of assessment year 2007-2008 in which part performance had taken place ignoring the provisions

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-2 vs. M/S BOSE CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT. L TO.

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

53A of the NDPS Act supra, it is clear that statements, recorded under Section 67 of the said Act, would, ipso facto and proprio vigore, be relevant for proving the truth of the contents of such statements. The protection, which is afforded, to statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., by Section 162 thereof, and the protection afforded