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

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” of a “capital asset” effected

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

Appeals are allowed

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” of a “capital asset” effected

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

Appeals are allowed

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” of a “capital asset” effected

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

Appeals are allowed

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” of a “capital asset” effected

RAJIV MADHOK,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

section 54F. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly negatived this contention and has held that the new residential house had been purchased by the assessee within two years after the sale of the capital asset which resulted in long-term capital gains. The Tribunal has held that the relevant date in this connection is July 29, 1988, when

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

price before and after the issue. PCIT Vs Dr. Ranjan Pai (Karnataka High Court) Section 56of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from other sources - Chargeable as (Gift) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Bonus shares can inadequate consideration calling for application of sub-clause (c) of clause (vii) of section 56(2) [In favour of assessee] An assessee who received bonus

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

price before and after the issue. PCIT Vs Dr. Ranjan Pai (Karnataka High Court) Section 56of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income from other sources - Chargeable as (Gift) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Bonus shares can inadequate consideration calling for application of sub-clause (c) of clause (vii) of section 56(2) [In favour of assessee] An assessee who received bonus

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

ARJUN MALHOTRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 54F in respect of purchase of House No.5, Golf Links, New Delhi for Rs.10.75 Crores was allowed and the balance amount of Rs.4,18,00,000/- was treated as long term capital gains. In other words, the Assessing Officer assumed the transfer price

ARJUN MALHOTRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 54F in respect of purchase of House No.5, Golf Links, New Delhi for Rs.10.75 Crores was allowed and the balance amount of Rs.4,18,00,000/- was treated as long term capital gains. In other words, the Assessing Officer assumed the transfer price

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

price, preferential location charges and the additional charges. i) Even if that deal of assessee with Mr. Pankaj Sharma is not treated as construction then also it falls within the ambit of purchase. Purchase involves transfer in relation to a capital asset. Section 2(47) states that relinquishment of the asset or extinguishment of any rights therein

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

price by payment in kind or adjustment towards a debt or for other monetary consideration. Each release in this case was a transfer of the releasor's share for consideration to the release and the transferee, the assessee, "purchased" the share of each of his brothers and the assessee was, therefore, entitled to the relief under section

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ARJUN PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

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

price of Rs. 8.37 crores. • No organized effort was undertaken to attract purchasers. • The circumstances shows that the appellant wanted to realize the proceeds to invest in a residential house, which was done and benefit u/s 54F was sought. • Appellant never dealt in the trading of land. 52 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MOHINDER PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

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

price of Rs. 8.37 crores. • No organized effort was undertaken to attract purchasers. • The circumstances shows that the appellant wanted to realize the proceeds to invest in a residential house, which was done and benefit u/s 54F was sought. • Appellant never dealt in the trading of land. 52 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri

SMT. AMARJEET KAUR,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

transfer of book entry. However, the assessee did not claim the exemption under section 54/54F of the Act on account of this investment in the house property by filing the return of income. When the assessee parted with the whole amount of Rs.1.23 crores by way of investment into the house property, nothing prevented her from declaring the same

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

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

transfer. 2. The Board had occasion to examine as to whether the acquisition of a flat by an allottee under the Self-Financing Scheme of the Delhi Development Authority amounts to purchase or its construction by the Delhi Development Authority on behalf of the allottee. Under the Self-Financing Scheme of the Delhi Development Authority the allotment letter is issued