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

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 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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

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. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any person receives at any time during any previous year any money or other

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

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. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any person receives at any time during any previous year any money or other

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

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

1,31,55,507/- ,in the name of his wife and has subsequently claimed exemption u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. The AO has highlighted that since the conditions laid down in section 54B has not been fulfilled, this claim could not be allowed. In this regard, the relevant portion of the provision of section 54B are reproduced

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

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

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)

1 is general in nature which requires no adjudication. 9. Ground No. 2 is regarding addition made on account of treating Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the treatment of Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’ for short) on jewellery as Short Term Capital Gain (‘STCG’ for short) and making

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

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 at INR 1

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. 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

price is Rs. 1300/- sq ft. Total sales consideration comes to Rs.1,09,69,0, 000/-. Further it is also clearly mentioned in the said MOU that out of Rs. 1,09,69,00,000/- Rs. 76,50,00,000/- is due to the confirming party. 12. After signing the MOU dated. 11.08.2010 being confirming party assessee executed sale deed

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

price is Rs. 1300/- sq ft. Total sales consideration comes to Rs.1,09,69,0, 000/-. Further it is also clearly mentioned in the said MOU that out of Rs. 1,09,69,00,000/- Rs. 76,50,00,000/- is due to the confirming party. 12. After signing the MOU dated. 11.08.2010 being confirming party assessee executed sale deed

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

price is Rs. 1300/- sq ft. Total sales consideration comes to Rs.1,09,69,0, 000/-. Further it is also clearly mentioned in the said MOU that out of Rs. 1,09,69,00,000/- Rs. 76,50,00,000/- is due to the confirming party. 12. After signing the MOU dated. 11.08.2010 being confirming party assessee executed sale deed