DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

house property, capital gains and other sources, filed return of income\non 16.10.2016 declaring income of Rs.21,63,53,810. The return was processed\nunder Section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment\nthrough CASS for limited scrutiny based on following reasons:\n1. “Substantial increase in capital in a year”.\n2. \"Large deduction claimed

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

54B,54C,54D,54G, 54GA (Schedule CG of ITR) and (iii) Large balance in foreign bank account (Schedule FA of ITR). Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13/07/2017 and served through email as well as speed post. Ld. Authorized Representative (A/R) of the assessee Sh. Vinay Malik, CA filed his Authorization to represent the case

SANJIV AHUJA,DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2012-13

54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, and 54EB while the word "a" has been used in sections 54 and 54F of the Act. This clearly shows that the legislature intended different meanings to be given to these two words. A closer reading of these sections shows that legislature intended to allow exemption in respect of investment in more than one asset

BRAHAM PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

house in his wife's name, the court had concluded that the assessee in such circumstances was entitled to exemption under section 54 of the Act. After giving our thoughtful consideration, we are unable to accept the view as laid down in V. Natarajan's case [2006] 287 ITR 271 (Mad).' Thus, even assuming that the assessee had invested