ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

53A ofthe Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) From such handover letter, it will be observed that the developer has confirmed that no outstanding dues were payable in respect of such flat. This proves that the prescribed condition as per section 54 for making reinvestment in another residential house by 7 ACIT v. Prem Sapra

NDTV WORLDWIDE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT 18(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmandtv Worldwide Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-18(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccn9121G

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The case of the appellant is of transfer of shares in terms of a Share Purchase Agreement and where the transfer was apparent from the financial statements in as much as that both the number and toe value of shares stood reduced in toe balance sheet, gain from sale of investment

VISHAL AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. PR,CIT, NOIDA

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 803/Del/2022, A.Y. 2012-13

price mentioned in the sale deed be taken into consideration to re-compute the short term capital gain. The relevant observations of Ld. PCIT are reproduced below for convenience :- “As can be seen from the discussion above that the transfer of the impugned property has not taken place at all, between the alleged vendor Smt. Sangita Gupta and the vendee

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Supreme Court way back in 1979 in CIT V. T.N Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46/2 Taxman 541, however, gave it a wider meaning and it was held that the payment made for execution of release deed by the brother thereby joint ownership became separate ownership for price

MAHESH KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act which governs Sale/Transfer of Immovable Property. Various case laws were also cited. However, LD. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not record anything for not considering applicability of such cases and the provisions of the Two Act, as stated above, which categorically explains that the subject transaction was merely a transaction

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

53A of the Transfer of Property Act is missing. We are unable to find fault with the order of the Tribunal on this point. It is based on the seized material which has been rightly taken into consideration. The Tribunal has not ignored any relevant material or circumstance nor has it taken into account any irrelevant material in agreeing with

The Commissioner of Income Tax II

Appeal is dismissed

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Supreme Court way back in 1979 in CIT Andhra Pradesh vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 4 SCC 721, however, gave it a wider meaning and it was held that the payment made for execution of release deed by the brother thereby joint ownership became separate ownership for price

DEEPAK BHATNAGAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 256/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Deepak Bhatnagar, Vs Dcit, J-7, Mig Flats, Prasad Nagar, Circle-1(1)(2), Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahzpb6972E Assessee By : Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Avikal Manu, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2022

price less than its 2 Deepak Bhatnagar cost of acquisition cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the veracity of assessee's claim of loss on sale of property in question remains un-substantiated. Ergo, the short term capital loss of Rs.6,31,000/- claimed by the assessee is disallowed for want of supporting evidence. 3. Aggrieved the assessee has challenged the action

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL

price. While most of the factories have reimbursed the loss, sum of them have not done so. In case of any default there is no remedy available to the export agency. (i.e. assessee’s company) under the sugar export promotion act to initiate recovery proceedings. It is, therefore contended that the loss recoverable from the factories is booked under receipt

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OCL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

53A of the Act which provides for capitalization of foreign exchange gain/loss with the cost of asset is also not applicable since the asset was not acquired during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) held gain on cancellation of forward contract amounting to Rs.92,05,509/- as Revenue receipt chargeable to tax. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

OCL INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.4068/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Dalmia Bharat Ltd., (Successor In The Interest Of Ocl India Ltd.) 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aabco-8750-F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 19(1), C R Building New Delhi 110095 आअसं.3767/िद"ी/2015(िन.व. 2007-08) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Uditnagar, Rourkela, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha 769012 बनाम Vs. Dalmia Bharat Ltd., Successor Of Ocl India Ltd., 11Th & 12Th Floor, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aabco-8750-F

53A of the Act which provides for capitalization of foreign exchange gain/loss with the cost of asset is also not applicable since the asset was not acquired during the year under consideration. The CIT(A) held gain on cancellation of forward contract amounting to Rs.92,05,509/- as Revenue receipt chargeable to tax. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer in relation to capital asset includes \"any\ntransaction involving the possession of any\nimmovable property to be taken or retained in part performance\nof a contract of the nature referred to in section 53A of the\nTransfer of Property Act, 1882(4 of 1882).\" In this case the\nagreement to sell dated 21.02.2005, which has been upheld

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. UDAI SHANKER AWASTHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

prices of the same and obtained an\nundisclosed consideration by way of commission through the services of Shri\nRajeev Saxena, a NRI Chartered Accountant, practising in Dubai and got\nthose funds transferred through his assistance, to some companies under the\ncontrol of Mr Amol Awasthi, son of the assessee, also a Dubai based NRI for\nthe last two decades. Though

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

prices of the same and obtained an\nundisclosed consideration by way of commission through the services of Shri\nRajeev Saxena, a NRI Chartered Accountant, practising in Dubai and got those\nfunds transferred through his assistance, to some companies under the\ncontrol of Mr Amol Awasthi, son of the assessee, also a Dubai based NRI for\nthe last two decades. Though

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. UDAI SHANKER AWASTHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

prices of the same and obtained an\nundisclosed consideration by way of commission through the services of Shri\nRajeev Saxena, a NRI Chartered Accountant, practising in Dubai and got\nthose funds transferred through his assistance, to some companies under the\ncontrol of Mr Amol Awasthi, son of the assessee, also a Dubai based NRI for\nthe last two decades. Though

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. UDAI SHANKER AWASTHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

prices of the same and obtained an\nundisclosed consideration by way of commission through the services of Shri\nRajeev Saxena, a NRI Chartered Accountant, practising in Dubai and got\nthose funds transferred through his assistance, to some companies under the\ncontrol of Mr Amol Awasthi, son of the assessee, also a Dubai based NRI for\nthe last two decades. Though

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. UDAI SHANKER AWASTHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

prices of the same and obtained an\nundisclosed consideration by way of commission through the services of Shri\nRajeev Saxena, a NRI Chartered Accountant, practising in Dubai and got\nthose funds transferred through his assistance, to some companies under the\ncontrol of Mr Amol Awasthi, son of the assessee, also a Dubai based NRI for\nthe last two decades. Though