UMA DUTT PALIWAL PROP.,PANIPAT vs. ADDL. CIT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Uma Dutt Paliwal, Vs Addl. Cit, Prop. Paliwal Home Furnishing, Karnal. Panipat. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

50C. Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases: Where the consideration received or accruing as (1) a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

50C of the Act was already on the statute prior to the former section being incorporated in the Act. If section 50D of the Act was sufficient to capture the situation as in the present case, then there was no necessity to insert provision of Section 50CA of the Act in the statute by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f

NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAQL CIRCLE-15, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 50C when stamp duty valuation of a property is higher than apparent sale consideration shown in the instrument of transfer then onus to prove that fair market value of the property is lower than such valuation by the SVA is on the assessee who can reasonably discharge this onus by submitting necessary material before the Assessing Officer, such

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 50C(A) were inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.04.2018 and prior to this there were no powers with the Assessing Officer to substitute the value of actual consideration. He further referred to the agreement placed at page 265 of the Paper Book and it was brought to our notice that the shares of the said company of Japan

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 50C(A) were inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.04.2018 and prior to this there were no powers with the Assessing Officer to substitute the value of actual consideration. He further referred to the agreement placed at page 265 of the Paper Book and it was brought to our notice that the shares of the said company of Japan

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 50C(A) were inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.04.2018 and prior to this there were no powers with the Assessing Officer to substitute the value of actual consideration. He further referred to the agreement placed at page 265 of the Paper Book and it was brought to our notice that the shares of the said company of Japan

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 50C(A) were inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.04.2018 and prior to this there were no powers with the Assessing Officer to substitute the value of actual consideration. He further referred to the agreement placed at page 265 of the Paper Book and it was brought to our notice that the shares of the said company of Japan

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 50C(A) were inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.04.2018 and prior to this there were no powers with the Assessing Officer to substitute the value of actual consideration. He further referred to the agreement placed at page 265 of the Paper Book and it was brought to our notice that the shares of the said company of Japan

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 50C(A) were inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.04.2018 and prior to this there were no powers with the Assessing Officer to substitute the value of actual consideration. He further referred to the agreement placed at page 265 of the Paper Book and it was brought to our notice that the shares of the said company of Japan

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:-

transfer of leasehold rights. 3.2 In any case, this being a case of bonafide sale made in accordance with prevailing market rate, the Pr. CIT, New Delhi was not justified in disputing the sale consideration u/s 50C without appreciating the factual position or making any reference to the Valuation Officer in terms of provisions of section 55A of the Income

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\nPage | 42 \nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022,\n704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

transfer of steam has taken though additional grounds\n\nPage | 42\n\nof appeal be admitted and additional evidences filed in support of\nthe additional claim may deserves to be admitted in the interest of\njustice.\n\n44. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR seriously objected the\nadmission of additional grounds as well as admission of additional\nevidences

YOGESH JUNEJA,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-29(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 218/Del/2020 (A.Y 2015-16)

Section 50C (1) of the Act the parties in many times faced undue hardship and difficulties when agreement to sell of a property was executed in earlier years and transferred took place in later years. During the intervening period price

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAPID ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandrathe Dy. C.I.T Vs. Rapid Engineering Co. Pvt Ltd Circle – 19(1) 111-112, Dsidc Sheds Delhi Okhla Phase – 1, New Delhi

transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2), that wherever an assessee claims that the actual market rate is less than the stamp duty valuation, he can have the matter referred

M/S. AMRAPALI CINEMA,MEERUT vs. ACIT, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Amrapali Cinema, Acit, C/O-Sh. Anil Kumar Goel, Vs Circle-I, Income Tax Office, 90, Ram Nagar, Hapur Road, Near Bhainsali Ground, Meerut. Delhi Road, Meerut. Pan-Aabfa7846D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Fca. Respondent By Sh. Ashok Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2021

transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2), that wherever an assessee claims that the actual market rate is less than the stamp duty valuation, he can have the matter referred

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 (i.e. Rs.1,04,17,400/-) and ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. the stamp duty value (i.e. Rs. 3,40,16,000/-) of the property by invoking the provision of section 50C. 77. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 78. During the course