SMT. ANITA MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,830/- only. Deeming fiction created in Section 50C is limited only to the extent and for the purpose of section 48 and this deeming fiction cannot be extended or interpreted as meant for the purpose of other provisions of the Act including Section 54F

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)

68,830/- only. Deeming fiction created in Section 50C is limited only to the extent and for the purpose of section 48 and this deeming fiction cannot be extended or interpreted as meant for the purpose of other provisions of the Act including Section 54F

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

68,830/- only. Deeming fiction created in Section 50C is limited only to the extent and for the purpose of section 48 and this deeming fiction cannot be extended or interpreted as meant for the purpose of other provisions of the Act including Section 54F

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68,400 in the financial year 2010-11 by the Government registered valuer deserves to be adopted. In support of its contentions, the assessee relied upon the decision of the SMC Bench of the Jaipur tribunal in the case of Shri Kanhaiya Lal lalvani in ITA No.364/JP/2022. 3.6 Per contra, the Ld.DR would like to place reliance upon the order

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ADARSH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiyaa.Y. 2012-13

54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is erroneous and without jurisdiction. 2. The assessment made under section 143(3) is without jurisdiction. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add one or more ground of appeal or to alter / modify the existing ground before or at the time of hearing

JAGDISH CHAND VERMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD- 67(2), DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2014-15 Jagdish Chand Verma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Pramod Shukla, Ward-67(2), 3748, First Floor, Kucha Delhi. Parmanand, Daryaganj. Pan: Aanpv4931G

68 r.w. section 115BBE - The Appellant did not furnish any evidence in form of sale receipts or confirmations from persons/ parties to whom such items were sold. Mere filing of affidavits is not sufficient. 5. At outset it can be observed that assessment is competed under section 144 of the Act though the notices were sent

SH. VINOD KUMAR ARORA,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result ground No. 4 of the revenues appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishivinod Kumar Arora, Ito, G-107, Shastri Nagar, Ward-2(4), Vs. Meerut, Meerut Pan:Abnpa5944K (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito, Vinod Kumar Arora, Ward-2(4), G-107, Shastri Nagar, Vs. Meerut Meerut, Pan:Abnpa5944K (Appellant) (Respondent)

54F at Rs.10,41,901/- for purchase of the residential flat, ignoring the provision of section 45(2). Nor allowance of deduction is, therefore, arbitrary, unjust, uncalled-for and in any case illegal. 5. That under the facts & circumstances of the case, the learned CIT( Appeals) has erred to apply section 68

BALWANT SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(3),, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

54F of the Act read with section 139 of the Act is also incorrect, misconceived and untenable. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in not directing the credit of tax of Rs. 80,000/- against the demand computed in the order of assessment dated 23.12.2016. 4. That

SUKH DARSHAN SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD.43(2) , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

54F and made adjustments to the income declared by the assessee in his return of income. He proceeded to make the addition of Rs.40,96,805/- u/s 68 of the Act. Sukh Darshan Singh vs. ITO 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and filed following grounds of appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances

SH. RAJENDRA JOSHI,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

68(2) Sector 51 New Delhi Noida 201301 PAN No AFRPJ1417L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Abhishek Mathur, Adv Department by: Sri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing: 06-08-2020 Date of Pronouncement: 14-08-2020 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Aggrieved by the order dated 30/11/2016 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR RALHAN

54F of the Act was denied and capital gains of Rs.51,71, 994/- was brought to tax. The second addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.19,75,410/- under Section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIJAY KUMAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Vijay Kumar, New Delhi A-3/195, West Delhi, Janakpuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagpk0642Q

54F of the Act in the sum of Rs 3,62,37,500 . 4. The assessee submitted before the Learned CITA that the Learned AO had failed to consider the documents submitted vide submission dated 9-9-2022 comprising of a) copy of bank statement of Bank of India and Vijay Kumar HDFC Bank through which the payments were made

MEENA SETHI,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD - 3, KARNAL

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

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedimeena Sethi Vs. Ito C/O. Girish Aneja Ca Ward – 3 796, Sec-13, Karnal, Karnal Haryana – 132 001

section 54F(4) of the Act and the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in denying relief to the assessee in a very casual, unreasoned and illogical manner. 3. That the Appellant craves to add, amend or delete any ground(s) of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 4. Before us, at the outset, Learned

ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. explanation of assessee by issuing statutory notices and questionnaire. The A.O. discussed the matter with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [“JCIT”]. The assessee also placed on record Arbitration Award and other details before A.O. for completion

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. explanation of assessee by issuing statutory notices and questionnaire. The A.O. discussed the matter with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [“JCIT”]. The assessee also placed on record Arbitration Award and other details before A.O. for completion

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. explanation of assessee by issuing statutory notices and questionnaire. The A.O. discussed the matter with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [“JCIT”]. The assessee also placed on record Arbitration Award and other details before A.O. for completion

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. explanation of assessee by issuing statutory notices and questionnaire. The A.O. discussed the matter with the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [“JCIT”]. The assessee also placed on record Arbitration Award and other details before A.O. for completion

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

54F and under section 54 relating to deposit of money under capital gains account scheme would not apply. Since the assessee before us made investment of Rs. 35,04,400/- which was more than the balance LTCG of Rs. 33,21,868/- and paid the substantial amount of Rs. 21,72,752/- before the due date of filing belated