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

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

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

KAMLESH KHANNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20.09.2016 and served upon the assessee. 5. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed indexed cost of improvement of Rs. 43,25,517/-, Rs.27,28,791/- and Rs.4.20,216/- respectively