ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price paid for the property; (d) Section 69B does not permit an inference to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the transaction that the purchaser of the property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in this books of account, because such an inference could be very subjective and could lead to the taxation of notional or fictitious

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price paid for the property; (d) Section 69B does not permit an inference to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the transaction that the purchaser of the property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in this books of account, because such an inference could be very subjective and could lead to the taxation of notional or fictitious

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATE TECHNO PLASTICS P. LTD

The appeal is dismissed and the question of law is answered in favour of the

transferred 12,70,000 shares of HCL to 62 different persons at prices varying between Rs.18.91 to Rs.6.02, between May, 1988 to November, 1988. The Assessing Officer taking into consideration the market price on different dates when the sale transactions were entered 2013:DHC:6002-DB ITA Nos. 20/2000 & 95/2002 Page 4 of 28 into and made an addition

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

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-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

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN 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

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

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

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SUDHARSHNA ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

transferred shares to M/s SJS Holdings Ltd. for inadequate consideration. Initially, he estimated the price of per sq.yard of land at Rs. 5000/- on adhoc basis. Later on, the matter was referred to the valuation cell for valuation of land. The valuation cell has valued the price of land at Rs. 8000/- per sq.yard. The A.O. applied

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. NEELAM ARYA, DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Central Circle -25, Vs. Neelam Arya Room No. 317, 3Rd Floor, 7, Neelanchal, Bandh E-2, Ara Centre, Road,Chandanhulla, Jhandewalan Extension Chattarpur, New Delhi – 110055 Delhi – 110074 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adtpa6583A Appellant .. Respondent

transferred from Circle 13(1), New Delhi to Central Circle – 25, New Delhi and notice under Section 153A of the Act dated 05.08.2019 was issued upon the assessee asking him to file a return of income within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The return of income was filed on 03.10.2019 declaring income at Rs.43

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The\nrequirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of\nevidence and burden of proof are also different, hence, unless the\nPetitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention or provisions of\nlaw under which assessment or additions are sought to be made, the\nPetitioner cannot defend

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL

transfer at Rs.3,30,24,000/-. The Assessing Officer, however, felt that the report of the DVO requires moderation after noticing the fact that the property was leasehold and 36 years out of 99 years of lease were over. He also referred to the fact that the lease deed postulated payment of 50% unearned increase and determined the value

ACIT, CIRCLE-51(1), NEW DELHI vs. NAVEEN BATRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year 2017-18

price. Nothing was brought to suggest that this was not a regular item of the stock dealt by the assessee. 7.6 In the case of Shri Lovishsinghal, Shri Vasu Singhal,ShriPramond Kumar Singhal and shrivinodkumarsinghal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 and ACIT, Circle -Sriganganagar, Hon'ble ITAT JODHPUR Bench held that: “Surrender of income during survey - to be treated

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

price at which the conversion of investment took place wouldbe chargeable under the head income from business. Since, the conversion and subsequent sale have taken place during the same previous year, the sale proceeds become taxable under the head capital gain, unless the appellant has adopted different rates for conversion & subsequent transfers. 4.5.5 However as pointed

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

price at which the conversion of investment took place wouldbe chargeable under the head income from business. Since, the conversion and subsequent sale have taken place during the same previous year, the sale proceeds become taxable under the head capital gain, unless the appellant has adopted different rates for conversion & subsequent transfers. 4.5.5 However as pointed