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

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

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

3 & 3.1 raised by the assessee are allowed as indicated. 64. Now, coming to Ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 4.2 wherein the issue raised is against the disallowance of expenses totaling to Rs.60,51,351/-, while computing the income from long term capital gains on sale of land, on the ground that the same were not incidental to sale

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

3 & 3.1 raised by the assessee are allowed as indicated. 64. Now, coming to Ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 4.2 wherein the issue raised is against the disallowance of expenses totaling to Rs.60,51,351/-, while computing the income from long term capital gains on sale of land, on the ground that the same were not incidental to sale

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

3 & 3.1 raised by the assessee are allowed as indicated. 64. Now, coming to Ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 4.2 wherein the issue raised is against the disallowance of expenses totaling to Rs.60,51,351/-, while computing the income from long term capital gains on sale of land, on the ground that the same were not incidental to sale

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

3 & 3.1 raised by the assessee are allowed as indicated. 64. Now, coming to Ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 4.2 wherein the issue raised is against the disallowance of expenses totaling to Rs.60,51,351/-, while computing the income from long term capital gains on sale of land, on the ground that the same were not incidental to sale

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

3 & 3.1 raised by the assessee are allowed as indicated. 64. Now, coming to Ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 4.2 wherein the issue raised is against the disallowance of expenses totaling to Rs.60,51,351/-, while computing the income from long term capital gains on sale of land, on the ground that the same were not incidental to sale

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

3 & 3.1 raised by the assessee are allowed as indicated. 64. Now, coming to Ground of appeal Nos. 4 to 4.2 wherein the issue raised is against the disallowance of expenses totaling to Rs.60,51,351/-, while computing the income from long term capital gains on sale of land, on the ground that the same were not incidental to sale

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)

price is higher can be drawn, if the circumstances spelt out in Section 50-C are fulfilled. This provision was challenged before the Madras High Court, in K.R. Palanisamy (supra). The Court repelled the challenge, but nevertheless held that: "Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50C provides further safeguard to the assessee, in the sense that if the assessee

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

3. In this regard it may be mentioned that provision of Section 50C(1) is mandatory whereby there is no option to the Assessing Officer but 7 to adopt the valuation done by the SVA in place of apparent consideration shown by the assessee. It has been held that where there was material on record that valuation done

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

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

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 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

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

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:-

price to the Lessor. He drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Lease Deed which reads as under: “5(a) The Lease shall not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the industrial plot except with the previous consent in writing of the Lessor which

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

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

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 (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