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

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer

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

Appeals are allowed

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer

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

Appeals are allowed

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer

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

Appeals are allowed

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer

M/S. ASHWANI KUMAR & SONS (HUF),MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwani Kumar & Sons (Huf) Ito, C/0. Vinod Kumar Goel, Vs. Ward-1(1), 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut Meerut Pan:Aahha7564A (Appellant) (Respondent)

54B of the income tax act, it was submitted that assessee being an HUF is not entitled to the deduction as per clear cut language of the section. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the details filed by the assessee. It is undisputed fact that assessee has Page 4 of 10 entered into an agreement

RANDHIR SINGH,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08

transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section." On going through the provision it is clear that the assessee had to purchase agricultural land and there is no provision for any other person who can make investment on his behalf to enable the assessee to claim the exemption u/s 54B

M R APPARELS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

54B, 54D, 54E, 54BA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H / be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Capital gains', and shall be deemed to be the income of previous year in which the transfer took place. ' Further, the argument of assessee that a certain part of sale consideration was not received by them, is not supported by registered sale deed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

price of `42.50 Crores was attributable to any particular asset including any depreciable asset and therefore provisions of Section 50(2) were not attracted. It also contended that it was an old concern for more than 36 months, its transfer would give long term capital gain. The assessee also relied on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. M/s. Artex Manufacturing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

price of `42.50 Crores was attributable to any particular asset including any depreciable asset and therefore provisions of Section 50(2) were not attracted. It also contended that it was an old concern for more than 36 months, its transfer would give long term capital gain. The assessee also relied on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. M/s. Artex Manufacturing

BIRENDER YADAV S/O RAM NARAYAN YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Birender Yadav, S/O-Ram Vs. Ito, Narayan Yadav, Ward-2(3), 207-208, Deep Plaza, Gurgaon Near Civil Court, Gurgaon-122001 Pan: Abypy4175F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr

54B and section 54/54F claims; respectively. 4. The Revenue vehemently argues in support of both the learned lower authorities’ foregoing findings that the assessee’s land sold has been rightly assessed as a capital asset and the very outcome ought to follow for his cash deposits as well. We deem it appropriate to reiterate that we have proceeded ex-parte

SH. NARESH KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishish. Naresh Kumar, Vs. Ito, S/O. Shri Rishal Singh, Ward-42(4), R/O. House No. 90, Baprola New Delhi Village, New Delhi Pan: Awips4862N (Appellant) (Respondent)

54B for investment in agricultural land is not given any relief.” 3. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual, not having any permanent account number, assessed u/s 144 read with section 147 of the income tax by the order dated 28/2/2014 wherein the total income of the assessee was assessed

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

price was also reflected in Form No. 26AS of the Assessee for the year under consideration. It is the case of the Assessee that the wife is dependent of the Assessee and the name of the wife reflected in the sale deed is only for name sake and no consideration was paid by her. The said facts can be corroborated

SH. JEET RAM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6300/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Uday Vir, Sh. Ram Kishan, Sh. Vs Income Tax Officer, Kawal Singh S/O Lt. Shri Chand, Ward-4(5), Smt. Vishan Devi, Legal Heirs Of Gurgaon Shri Chand S/O Sh. Todar, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Benpc7845D

section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without recording valid reasons as per law and without obtaining valid approval as per law and in any case reopening of the assessment and framing of the reassessment order was contrary to law. 2. That in any view of the matter and in any case, action

SH. SHRI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. UDAY VIR, SH. RAM KISHAN, SH. KAWAL SINGH AND SMT. VISHAN DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6300/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Uday Vir, Sh. Ram Kishan, Sh. Vs Income Tax Officer, Kawal Singh S/O Lt. Shri Chand, Ward-4(5), Smt. Vishan Devi, Legal Heirs Of Gurgaon Shri Chand S/O Sh. Todar, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Benpc7845D

section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without recording valid reasons as per law and without obtaining valid approval as per law and in any case reopening of the assessment and framing of the reassessment order was contrary to law. 2. That in any view of the matter and in any case, action

SH. NET RAM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6300/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Uday Vir, Sh. Ram Kishan, Sh. Vs Income Tax Officer, Kawal Singh S/O Lt. Shri Chand, Ward-4(5), Smt. Vishan Devi, Legal Heirs Of Gurgaon Shri Chand S/O Sh. Todar, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Benpc7845D

section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without recording valid reasons as per law and without obtaining valid approval as per law and in any case reopening of the assessment and framing of the reassessment order was contrary to law. 2. That in any view of the matter and in any case, action

ANUBHAV KAPOOR,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA (schedule CG of ITR) 3.1. The AO noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold a residential property at Triveninagar, Mohalla-Ahibranpur, Sitapur Road, Lucknow for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-(value as per section 50C of Rs.1,62,47,700/-) to Dr. Mamta Gaur and Dr. Ajay Kumar

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

prices of penny stock for generating capital\ngain/loss for beneficiaries.The undisclosed long term capital\ngain of Rs.51,52,564/- honor been contesta by appellant\nbefore the first appellate authority, i.e. It has accepted the\naddition of Rs.51,52,564/- on account of long term capital gain\nrelated to penny stock. In this context the preponderance of\nprobability of one appellant

SH. BAL KISHAN ATAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

54B, 54C, 54G & 54GA. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold a property for a total consideration of Rs.98,00,000/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 81,44,608/- under section 54 of the Income Tax Act after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.16,13,187/-. The assessee had invested a sum of Rs.62