ACIT, SONEPAT vs. SH SHER SINGH SHIVRAIN, JHAJJAR

In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 2(7A) of the Act, then too, order of assessment is without jurisdiction in absence of an order transferring jurisdiction u/s 127 of the Act from the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak to learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Rohtak Range, Rohtak 2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred

ILIYAS,G B NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), G B NAGAR

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

68 and do justice to the assessee. b) During the year, assessee has sold immovable property worth Rs.6,96,000/- being agricultural land in cash, which was later deposited in bank. Learned 2 Iliyas assessing officer has considered the cost of acquisition of such capital asset from 01/04/1981 whereas the property was actually acquired in 2007. Moreover, another agricultural land

BIRENDER YADAV S/O RAM NARAYAN YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Birender Yadav, S/O-Ram Vs. Ito, Narayan Yadav, Ward-2(3), 207-208, Deep Plaza, Gurgaon Near Civil Court, Gurgaon-122001 Pan: Abypy4175F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr

68 addition of unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs.1,94,98,400/- in course of assessment dated 28.03.2014 followed by CIT(A)’s lower appellate findings upholding the said twin additions and also rejecting section 54B

SHYAM SUNDER MAHESHWARI,NERW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhudr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. A plain reading of the act stipulates that the assessee has to , within a period

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, we must also add that the prescribed authority would also necessarily have to examine the manner in which the affairs of the university or an educational institution have been conducted in the past for the purposes of considering whether the Assessee qualifies the threshold requirement of Section

SANJIV AHUJA,DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, and 54EB while the word "a" has been used in sections 54 and 54F of the Act. This clearly shows that the legislature intended different meanings to be given to these two words. A closer reading of these sections shows that legislature intended to allow exemption in respect of investment in more than

ACIT, CIRCLE- 34(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANJAY KHANNA (HUF), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs Sanjay Khanna (Huf), Circle-34(1), B-127, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi. New Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaihs9436G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Y.K.Kapoor, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2021

68,759/- that included the interest on enhanced compensation of Rs.7,71,23,517/- so far the interest is concerned, the same has been offered for tax as income under the head “income from other sources”. However, for the component of enhanced compensation, the assesse claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act by investing Rs.4,55,00,000/- under

SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD,HARYANA vs. ITO, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

54B of Rs. 17,96,500/-; and c) addition on account of interest Rs. 54,851/- 5. On basis of aforesaid three additions, total income was at Rs. 29,31,350/- against returned income at Nil. Aggrieved by this action of the assessing officer, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), Rohtak. The appeal was dismissed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

68 (P & H)] (4) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narkeshwari Prakashan Ltd. [196 ITR 438 (Bom.)] 14. We have given our due consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the parties on either side. Before we embark on the discussion on the issue that qua for consideration and deal with our comments, we deed it proper to take

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

68 (P & H)] (4) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Narkeshwari Prakashan Ltd. [196 ITR 438 (Bom.)] 14. We have given our due consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the parties on either side. Before we embark on the discussion on the issue that qua for consideration and deal with our comments, we deed it proper to take

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer

RAM DARSHAN AGARWAL,BIJNORE vs. ITO,WARD-3(3), BIJNORE

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.996/Del/2025, A.Y. 2019-20 Ram Darshan Agarwal, Income Tax Officer, J-3, Geeta Nagari, Ward 3(3), Bijnore 246701 Vs. Income Tax Office, Bijnore, Uttar Pradesh Bijnore (Up) Pan: Aaqpa6807M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Alok Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2019-20 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit (A)’].

section 54 and 54B of the Act. The assessment order was passed at income Rs. 5,16,76,870/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal. The disputed issue before us is taxability of the unsecured loan of Rs.1,13,81,727/- upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) as under

SH. BAL KISHAN ATAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

54B, 54C, 54G & 54GA. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a property for a total consideration of Rs.98,00,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 81,44,608/- under section 54 of the Income Tax Act after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.16,13,187/-. The assessee had invested a sum of Rs.62,68

SANJAY SHARMA,GREATER NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sanjay Sharma, Vs Acit, Flat 4063, Ats Paradiso, Noida. Sec-Chi-04, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Amkps9185L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 23.12.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. “In The Instant Case The Appellant Assessee While Submitting The Income Tax Return For The Financial Year Ended On 31-03-2012 (Relevant To The Asst. Year 2012-13) Inadvertently Forgotten To Submit The Details For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Did Not Mentioned The Details Of Sale Of Residential House Property & Utilization Of Long-Term Capital Gain Arising Out Of Sale Of Residential House Property In The Purchase Of Another/New Residential House Property. Consequently, Income Demand Of Rs. 5,61,107/- Was Raised Against The Appellant Assessee Followed By The Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

68,000/-. 4. Aggrieved against the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Apropos to ground of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee inadvertently