DCIT, CC, GZBD , GZBD vs. ANJALI MITTAL , GZBD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer. From the above provisions, it is clear that since the cost of new asset i.e. Rs. 28,31,600/- is less than net sales consideration of old asset i.e. Rs. 58,50,000/-, the provisions of section 54F(1)(b) of IT Act shall apply and thus the exempt value of capital gain shall be computed as under: Capital

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)

transfer." 7. Plain reading of the aforesaid provision indicates that in order to get benefit of this Section, the assessee should, inter alia, "purchase" a house. As per the Revenue, this house has to be purchased in the name of the assessee only and benefit is not given if it is purchased by the assessee jointly with his wife

AMARENDRA FINANCIAL PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the tribunal. Before us, assessee also take additional grounds of appeal which are admitted as they are purely legal in nature and requires no verification of facts by placing reliance on the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383(SC).

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2)No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

price. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the impugned addition of Rs.8 lakhs made by the Ld.AO on account of commission payment and its confirmation by the Ld.CIT(A). We therefore set aside the order of the lower authorities and direct the Ld.AO to delete the impugned addition. Ground of appeal no.1 raised

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

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. As in page

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

SUBHASH CHAND KASERA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 47(1), NEW DELHI

Ground of Appeal 2 and 3 are dismissed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

transfer of long term capital asset since not invested the assessee for purchase of residential house property or construction of residential house, therefore, the ingredients of Section 54F and deduction claimed u/s. 54F was, was not found to be fulfilled and addition was made thereon. 6. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) upon verification of the entire issue, the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIJAY KUMAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. Vijay Kumar, New Delhi A-3/195, West Delhi, Janakpuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aagpk0642Q

transfer of long-term capital asset other than a residential house. The assessee was accordingly show-caused by the Learned AO to comply with the eligibility conditions prescribed under section 54F of the Act with all the supporting documents. The Learned AO noted that no reply was filed by the assessee to the said show-cause notice. Further

PHOOL SINGH,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD- 3(1), BULANDSHAHR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

54F of Rs. 12,02,500/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against it, now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3 Phool singh Vs. ITO 3. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee at the hearing. However, a letter from

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

transfer of the capital asset should be taken not merely at `four crores which was the cash amount received by the assessee, but the cost of construction incurred by the developer on the development of the property amounting to Rs. 3,43,72,529/- should also be added to the sale consideration. The assessee thereupon claimed that if the cost

PREMRAJ SINGH,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2016-17

price of year 2000 20/3 6.66667 Circle Rate in 2000 5,75,000 4,79,167/- Indexation 4,79,167*254/100 12,17,083/- Less: Cost of improvement 11,50,000/- Less: Deduction u/s 54F Purchase of Residential House within stipulated time 1,15,82,887/- Balance Taxable Nil 5. The appellant submitted copy of sale deed of the urban

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

price of Property No. B-480, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (purchased on 12.08.1985) 5,98,000 × 32.5% × 1024/133 = 14,96,349 • Indexed cost of Freehold Charges (paid on 14.10.1999) 1,35,546 × 32.5% × 1024/389 - 1,14,252 • Proportionate indexed cost of construction during FY 2008-2010 77,50,652 × (374.86/940.61) × 1024/711 = 44,48,649 Total Indexed Cost

KIRAN KAUR KOHLI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-53(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

price is corroborated from the balance sheet for A.Y. 2015-16. Further by virtue of such buyer agreement dated 30.12.2006, the Assessee duly transferred the rights in the said property to M/s. Surya Hotels Private Limited by executing an agreement to sale dated 14.10.2015. M/s. BPTP was unaware of the fact that the Assessee has already sold the property rights

PHOOLA RANI CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 30(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

price. As per the agreement the cost of the property was Rs. 12,61,000 as mentioned above. However the appellant did not submit proof of payment of Rs. 1703880. So the Long Term Capital gain from sale of flat in Delhi shall be calculated as follows; Sales Consideration Received 13500000 Less: indexed Cost (1261000x1125/172) 8247820 Total Long term capital

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. PHOOLA RANI CHADHA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

price. As per the agreement the cost of the property was Rs. 12,61,000 as mentioned above. However the appellant did not submit proof of payment of Rs. 1703880. So the Long Term Capital gain from sale of flat in Delhi shall be calculated as follows; Sales Consideration Received 13500000 Less: indexed Cost (1261000x1125/172) 8247820 Total Long term capital

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]

54F of the Act as under:- 1. Rs.16,00,000/- through RTGS on 04/07/2016 2. Rs.78,05,000/- through RTGS on 10/08/2016 3. Rs.95,000/- as TCS on 09/08/2016 4. Rs.6,55,000/- for stamp duty on registration of the property on 08.08.2016 3.3. The AO further noted that the assessee was a salaried person and the extended due date

ACIT CIRCLE-59(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANJAY SINGHAL & SONS (HUF), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 281/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Acit, Vs Sanjay Singhal & Sons (Huf), Circle-59(1), 9-110, Saraswati Kunj, 8, Alipur New Delhi Road, Delhi-110054 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihs6800C Assessee By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

Section 115BBE of the Act. The exemptions claimed u/s 54F /54EC were not allowed as they are available only against genuine LTCG. As a result the addition of Rs.2,78,20,000/- was made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act.” 5. The addition was made based on following findings of AO in Assessment Order:  The company whose shares

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