PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

price of land is more than the amount over and above Rs.595/- per sq ft, it shall be borne by Saamag. Time limit for acquiring land: i) Acquisition of 9 acres within five months. ii) Remaining 17.23177 acres within eight months. 3.1.10 i) In case Saamag acquired the land but fails to achieve sanction for the agreed project

SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

price of land is more than the amount over and above Rs.595/- per sq ft, it shall be borne by Saamag. Time limit for acquiring land: i) Acquisition of 9 acres within five months. ii) Remaining 17.23177 acres within eight months. 3.1.10 i) In case Saamag acquired the land but fails to achieve sanction for the agreed project

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882); or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a co-operative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

price of the asset was fixed it was between the parties to decide about the terms of payments which unless prohibited in the statute cannot be gone behind. 15. On an examination of the lease deed, the ITAT held that the leasehold rights in the business assets were sold for Rs.20.729 crore which was undoubtedly agreed to be paid

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

price of the asset was fixed it was between the parties to decide about the terms of payments which unless prohibited in the statute cannot be gone behind. 15. On an examination of the lease deed, the ITAT held that the leasehold rights in the business assets were sold for Rs.20.729 crore which was undoubtedly agreed to be paid

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

price of the asset was fixed it was between the parties to decide about the terms of payments which unless prohibited in the statute cannot be gone behind. 15. On an examination of the lease deed, the ITAT held that the leasehold rights in the business assets were sold for Rs.20.729 crore which was undoubtedly agreed to be paid

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

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no such contract in the instant case and, therefore, the transaction would not qualify for ‘transfer’ under the Act. 5.11 The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MONI KUMAR SUBBA, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the Ld. counsel, there was no such contract in the instant case and, therefore, the transaction would not qualify for ‘transfer’ under the Act. 5.11 The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies

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

M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 (4 of 1882); or (vi) any transaction (whether by way of becoming a member of, or acquiring shares in, a cooperative society, company or other association of persons or by way of any agreement or any arrangement or in any other manner whatsoever) which has the effect of transferring, or enabling

TRIPLE ESS INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

price consideration and immediately after the allotment of the letter the assessee has made the entire payment of the flat. Thereafter, Buyer’s agreement was entered into with DLF Limited, whereby assesee got all the rights on the same flat vide agreement dated 8.3.2006 and the entire consideration was paid much prior to the agreement dated which has also been

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