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)

55A by which the AO got the property valued and adopted the report of the valuation officer is the sole basis for making the impugned addition was wholly invalid. (V) the assessing officer has not embarked upon making inquiries from the purchaser about the actual sale consideration and has not brought on record any other material worth the name

RAJO DEVI,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year 2010-11 Smt. Rajo Devi, The Income Tax Officer, W/O. Reshram, Ward-32(1), Room No.1804, 76, Asola Village, Vs. Fatehpur Beri, 11Th Floor, E-2 Block, Civic New Delhi – 110 074. Centre, New Delhi–110 001. Pan Atwpr3396M (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ca & Shri Pawan Kumar, Ca For Revenue : Shri Mithalesh Kr. Pandey, Sr. Dr

68,750/- only as against the bank deposit of Rs.94,00,000/-. To arrive to such conclusion and in order to know the market value of the land in question, the A.O. referred the matter to Valuation Officer under section 55A

MOHAN GARG,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandramohan Garg Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2 H. No. 905, Sector-15, Faridabad S.O. Faridabad, Haryana Sector-16A Faridabad, Haryana – 121003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahlpg2577N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2025

55A may be considered by the Assessing Officer as a piece of evidence if it is relevant, (See CIT v. East Commercial Co. Ltd. 1967 LXIII /TR 449, 457). However, the power of inquiry granted to an Assessing Officer under Sections 133(6) and 142(2) does not include the power to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer

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 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

PARMARTH IRON (P) LTD vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

55A of the I. T. Act. Now it is undoubtedly clear after the insertion of section 142A that the AO has the power as per law to make reference to the valuation after fulfilling the condition precedent. In my considered view though the assessee has maintained regular books of account but it is fact that the same could

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

55A of the I. T. Act. Now it is undoubtedly clear after the insertion of section 142A that the AO has the power as per law to make reference to the valuation after fulfilling the condition precedent. In my considered view though the assessee has maintained regular books of account but it is fact that the same could

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

55A of the I. T. Act. Now it is undoubtedly clear after the insertion of section 142A that the AO has the power as per law to make reference to the valuation after fulfilling the condition precedent. In my considered view though the assessee has maintained regular books of account but it is fact that the same could

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

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

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

68,24,043/- 2007-08 990336222/- 1028576525/- 3,82,40,303/- TOTAL 421,60,56,594/- 437,88,53,104/- 16,27,96,510/- 4. The Assessing Officer made additions to the returned income as a result of the difference between the cost of construction as disclosed in the returns and cost of construction estimated by the District Valuation Officer

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

68,24,043/- 2007-08 990336222/- 1028576525/- 3,82,40,303/- TOTAL 421,60,56,594/- 437,88,53,104/- 16,27,96,510/- 4. The Assessing Officer made additions to the returned income as a result of the difference between the cost of construction as disclosed in the returns and cost of construction estimated by the District Valuation Officer

M/S. GHAZIABAD ISPAT UDYOG LTD.,,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhirshri L.P. Sahu

section 68 of the Act. The ld. A.R referred to page Nos. 25 and 26 of the Paper Book i.e. copy of assessee’s letter dated 10.10.2012 filed before the AO furnishing list of unsecured loans, copy of lenders account, copy of Income-tax and their bank statement. The ld. A.R also referred to page

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MINDWORKS GLOBAL MEDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaidcit Mindworks Global Media A Circle-6(1), Services Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi Vs. E- 24, Second Floor, Greater Kailash Enclave, New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aadcm9970H (Appellant) (Respondent) A Appellant By : Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Sh. Neeraj Sharma, Sh. Manpreet Bagga Cas. Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2017

section 50A or 50B of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) has observed as under: “4.5 It is pertinent to mention that my Ld. Predecessor CIT(A)-IX referred the matter-to FT & TR Division of the Department for verifying the transaction through competent authority of the Government of Mauritius. The investigation report forwarded by FT & TR-Division does

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,63,32,947 return (to be taxed @ 10% under DTAA) Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 1,50,72,540 (As discussed in Para 5) (to be taxed @ 21.012%) Interest Income (Taxable Rs. 64,55,329/- @10% under DTAA) Total Income Rs.73,14,22,028/- Rounded off u/s 288 Rs. 73,14,22,030/- Thus, the assessee company is assessed

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 69 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 70 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 71 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 72 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 73 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 74 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 75 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 76 I.T.A

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

55A once the assessee has submitted the necessary evidence by way of the valuation report made by the registered valuer, the onus gets shifted on the AO to contradict the report of the registered valuer. The registered valuation officer is a technical expert and the opinion of an expert cannot be thrown out without bringing any material to the contrary

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

55A once the assessee has submitted the necessary evidence by way of the valuation report made by the registered valuer, the onus gets shifted on the AO to contradict the report of the registered valuer. The registered valuation officer is a technical expert and the opinion of an expert cannot be thrown out without bringing any material to the contrary

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

55A once the assessee has submitted the necessary evidence by way of the valuation report made by the registered valuer, the onus gets shifted on the AO to contradict the report of the registered valuer. The registered valuation officer is a technical expert and the opinion of an expert cannot be thrown out without bringing any material to the contrary