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)

prices below their fair market value. The expression "transfer" has altogether different connotation and meaning than the expression "issuance" and as such the provisions of said section 56(2)(viia) were meant to be applicable in cases of receipt of shares by a company or a firm on subsequent transfer of unlisted shares after their initial issuance by the issuing

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. SMT. MAMTA BHANDARI,, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

section 56(2)(vii) are applicable on Individual and HUF whereas Provisions of 56(2)(viia) are applicable on firm and company. As the assessee before us is an Individual we are concerned with Sec. 56(2)(vii). Finance (No.2) Act 2009 w.e.f. 01.10.2009 introduced clause (vii) as follows: “(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 56(2)(vii)(c)(ii), ignoring the facts that the assessee had acquired shares before the commencement of said provision of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well on facts in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 25,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income

MEENU SATIJA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

section 56(2)(vii) are applicable on Individual and HUF whereas Provisions of 56(2)(viia) are applicable on firm and company. As the assessee before us is an Individual we are concerned with Sex. 56(2)(vii). Finance (No.2) Act 2009 w.e.f. 01.10.2009 introduced clause (vii) as follows: “(vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) in spite of the evidences that the agreement to\nsell was executed in 2005 which was admitted/confirmed\nby Hon'ble Delhi High Court while delivering decision on\nspecific performance of the contract.\n3. Brief facts of the case:- During the year, it is submitted by the\nassessee that he hadsold an immovable propertybeing D-4, 1st Floor,\nVivekanandpuri, Lucknow

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 2(iii) approval in view of the interim order dated 10th January, 2017 of the Division Bench of this Court. However, this does not, in any manner, confer any right upon the petitioner. Similarly, the communication dated 20th October, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Mines does not come to the aid of the petitioner. By the said communication

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANSAL CONDOMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

vii) of the Act, it is evident that both the provisions are to counter evasion of tax - by way of transfer of property either without consideration or inadequate consideration. A combined reading of the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) and the Memorandum explaining the provisions shows that the provision of section 56(2)(viia) would be attracted

JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-10, NEW DELHI vs. BHANU CHOPRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryjt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sh. Bhanu Chopra, Tax,Special Range-10, M-140, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Agwpc5625R (Appellant) (Respondent)

transfer‟ involved in allotment of shares by a company to the share applicants as has been observed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. CIT (civil appeal no. 6654 of 2008 dated 14-11- 2008). The Supreme Court in this case observed that the bonus shares are nothing but mere capitalisation

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section 92C stipulates that most appropriate method, out of the methods specified in sub-section (1) shall be applied to determine

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

price of acquired land. It may be noted that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 34 of Land Acquisition Act only if there is delay in payment of compensation on or before taking possession of the acquired land. He has further submitted that award of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 discretionary and is determine

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

price. In this regard, he brought to our notice pages 116 to 119 of the paper book. He submitted that section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act was amended to provide sub-clause (ii) of the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014. He brought to 8 our notice the extracts from the Memorandum of Finance Bill reported

ACIT CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI vs. KUL PRAKASH CHANDOK , DELHI

In the result, we do not\nfind any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby\ndismissed

price would also become almost half. Therefore, on the\nsale of original shares held by an assessee, the assessee would undisputedly\nincur a loss. However, such loss is likely to be compensated on sale of bonus\nshares as and when it happens because cost of acquisition of bonus shares is\nnil as per the provisions of section 55(2

DCM SHRIIRAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

vii. It was further stated that the entire cost has not been utilized for generation of the power but it is a residual steam as a usable low- pressure steam, which is desired with requisite characteristics used by sugar units for crystallization process. He further submitted that assessee uses both high pressure and low pressure steam for its processes

ITO, WARD- 41(1), NEW DELHI vs. AASTHA GOEL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 41(1), Aastha Goel, New Delhi. 28/42, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. New Delhi.

price of Rs.75,00,000/- and the circle rate value was Rs.2,80,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) be not invoked and the difference in the amount be added to her total income. In response to the same, the assessee filed

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. SMT. MAMTA BHANDARI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

section 56 (2)(vii) includes immovable property being land or building or both, shares and securities, jewellery, archeological collection, drawings, paintings, sculpture or any work of art. A These are anti-abuse provisions which are currently applicable only if an individual or an HUF is the recipient. Therefore, transfer of shares of a company to a firm or a company

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section