ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

block of assets relating to other units/divisions. 8. In the first appeal, the CIT(Appeal) reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer and observed that the approach adopted by the Assessing Officer was contrary to Section 50 of the Act and the addition was wrongly made by treating the sale proceeds as short term capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

assessment of the value of the asset\nshould be as on the date of the notification when it became a\ncapital asset, cannot be accepted. In this connection a bench\ndecision of this court reported in Commissioner of Income-Tax\nv. Smt. M. Subaida Beevi (1986) 160 ITR 557) is directly on\nthe points, wherein it was held that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

block assessment order passed in the assessee‟s case is the amount of `19,35,769/- as “undisclosed capital gains

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

gain, if any after giving benefit of indexation as provided under law and decide the issue in the light of judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs Vembhu Vidyanathan (supra). The ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 9. The next issue is whether the compensation received amounting

ARUNIMA ADCON SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

capital gain. 6. The contentions of the assessee were dismissed by the Assessing Officer who was of the firm belief that profits arising from transfer of securities shall be taxable under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” only and completed assessment by treating the gains as profits of business. 7. The assessee challenged the assessment before

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RADHARANI ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

capital gain. 6. The contentions of the assessee were dismissed by the Assessing Officer who was of the firm belief that profits arising from transfer of securities shall be taxable under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” only and completed assessment by treating the gains as profits of business. 7. The assessee challenged the assessment before

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

Capital Plastic. On page -7 LHS there is on entry of Advista 150 it means Rs. 1,50,000 have been received from Advistas 150 it means Rs.1,50,000 have been received from Advistas. Annexure A-39 This probably relates to the details of payments made for purchases which have not been reflected in my regular books of a/cs

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

Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAJPG7737K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv.. Department by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the assessee is against

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

block of assets” on which depreciation was allowed @ 10% had ceased to exist and hence, under the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act, the entire surplus amount received by the Assessee on the sale of the aforesaid office premises would be liable to „short term capital gains‟. Accordingly, capital gain was calculated by the Assessing

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Block Mehrauli, Dr. S.P.Mukherjee, New Delhi-110030 Civic Centre PAN : AAUPS5020L New Delhi- 110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Manish Malik, Advocate and Sh. Vinod Gupta, CA Respondent by Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 07/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

capital gains. He first adopted the Written Down Value (WDV) of the assets included in the block of assets and having ascertained the same as per the depreciation chart which was part of the assessment

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

assessing officer. The ld AR stated that that the case of the Assessee does not fall in the categories stipulated by the CBDT in its aforesaid Instruction and therefore, the issuance of the impugned notice in the present case is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 14. Grounds No. 11 to 18 are in respect of merits

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

assessing officer. The ld AR stated that that the case of the Assessee does not fall in the categories stipulated by the CBDT in its aforesaid Instruction and therefore, the issuance of the impugned notice in the present case is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 14. Grounds No. 11 to 18 are in respect of merits

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

assessing officer. The ld AR stated that that the case of the Assessee does not fall in the categories stipulated by the CBDT in its aforesaid Instruction and therefore, the issuance of the impugned notice in the present case is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 14. Grounds No. 11 to 18 are in respect of merits

RISHI GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Block, 35B, 1st Floor Lajpat Nagar-2 New Delhi-110024 PAN:AALPG 5610P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sandeep Khandelwal, CA Respondent by Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 26/06/2024 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

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

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

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

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

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

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

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made