DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Transfer Pricing Officer is received by him.] (6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) 50[, (1A)] and (2) shall apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of 51[sub-sections (3), (5) and (5A)], be completed— (i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

price with Toshiba Corporation was Rs. 248.12 per share. 21. Thus, it is submitted that the substance of transaction is that the Assessee has transferred the shares she held in UEM India Pvt. Ltd. The company UEM India Pvt. Ltd. continued to hold the asset which were in its balance sheet before transfer of the shares and after transfer

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

price with Toshiba Corporation was Rs. 248.12 per share. 21. Thus, it is submitted that the substance of transaction is that the Assessee has transferred the shares she held in UEM India Pvt. Ltd. The company UEM India Pvt. Ltd. continued to hold the asset which were in its balance sheet before transfer of the shares and after transfer

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

price with Toshiba Corporation was Rs. 248.12 per share. 21. Thus, it is submitted that the substance of transaction is that the Assessee has transferred the shares she held in UEM India Pvt. Ltd. The company UEM India Pvt. Ltd. continued to hold the asset which were in its balance sheet before transfer of the shares and after transfer

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

price. In this regard, he brought to our notice pages 116 to 119 of the paper book. He submitted that section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act was amended to provide sub-clause (ii) of the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014. He brought to 8 our notice the extracts from the Memorandum of Finance Bill reported

CHAWLA JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price at a sum of Rs. 2,37,18 being assessable as turnover on which gross profit has been worked out at Rs. 16.82% thereby making an addition of Rs. 39,89,429/- [being part of addition of Rs. 1,47,26,510/-) is totally in contradiction of the findings recorded on the issue of difference between 22kt gold jewellery

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BSL SCAFFOLDING LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Dcit, Vs. Bsl Scaffolding Ltd, Sr-1B, 4Th Floor 93, Circle-4(2), New Delhi Ashoka Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacb3253B

142A of the Act could be invoked by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) BSL Scaffolding Ltd while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act on the ground that the property has been sold at a price less than circle rate. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee filed

MADHAV RASTOGI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-61(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Madhav Rastogi, Vs Ito, 2, Sreeniketan Apartments, 24, Ward-61(2), Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110096. Pan-Ahopr9376D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Madhav Rastogi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2022

price for such kind of property. A reference u/s 142A was made to the Valuation Officer of the Income Tax Department "" Emphasis Supplied 27. Similar to the case cited above, in the given scenario, it is not the case of the AO that the purchase of the property was not recorded or was concealed. Infact, the rental receipts from

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

142A of the Act for the purported determination of the FMV of the immovable properties owned by AJL. 6 ITA No.1251/Del./2019 2. The Appellant prays that the said reference and consequential determination of the purported FMV be held to be illegal. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. I TO VII GROUND NO. VIII: COMPUTING THE PURPORTED FMV BEYOND THE VALUE