ASHWANI TALWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaashwani Talwar, Vs. Ito, C/O. Advocate Deepak Ward-7(1), Kapoor, 59, Nehru New Delhi Apartments, Outer Ringh Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaapt0920E

carry forward to subsequent years even though no specific mention has been made by the ld AO in the assessment order qua the same. In these circumstances, there is absolutely nothing wrong in assessee claiming set off of such brought forward short term capital loss with the short term capital gain

SAIF PARTNERS INDIA IV LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION-3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

carried forward by the Company. In absence of specific columns to represent such short term capital loss in the ITR Form, no disclosures for such loss transaction was provided. Note that the long term capital gain

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

capital gains / losses. The assessee suffered LTCL of Rs 1,04,27,637/- in Asst Year 2012-13 on sale of equity shares and equity oriented mutual funds which were subject to levy of STT in the original return of income filed. The aforesaid loss was claimed to be carried forward

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

capital gains / losses. The assessee suffered LTCL of Rs 1,04,27,637/- in Asst Year 2012-13 on sale of equity shares and equity oriented mutual funds which were subject to levy of STT in the original return of income filed. The aforesaid loss was claimed to be carried forward

SAHARA INDIA CORP INVESTMENT LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1750/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 Sahara India Corp Investment Assistant Commissioner Ltd., Of Income Tax, I-Kapoorthala Complex, Vs. Central Circle–1, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up Jhandewalan, New Delhi Pan: Aaacs1707R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Aditya Vohra, Advocate Sh. Arpit Goyal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.06.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

forward of capital loss against the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) held that since the capital gains of the relevant year was exempted from tax; therefore, the loss resulted on sale of shares of M/s. PDOECL being capital loss, being exempted from tax, could not be carried

HEIDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaheidelberg Cement India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Infinity Circle-2, Towers, Dlf, Cybercity, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm2359J

carry forward and allowance of “capital loss” only. The revenue in the instant had looked into the entire issue from the perspective of current year‟s business loss to be set off with current year‟s long term capital gain

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)

carry forward of Short Term Capital Loss of Rs.8,60,931/- relating to Assessment Year 2008-09 and the same was set off against the current year Short Term Capital Gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

carry forward the same in case the assessee does not have income under other heads of income other than loss under the head Capital Gains

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

loss account for the financial year ended 31 March 2012 (which has comparative figures for 2011) are at page 1683 to 1684 of the ITAT Paperbook. 26. In view of the above, the Assessee submits that the orders passed by the lower authorities denying the benefit of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAA

MS CAMBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION DELHI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY MS CAMBRIDGE CONSTRUCTION DELHI LTD.) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)

Capital Gains against carried forward losses. The carried forward losses stood duly embodied in the return of income which was filed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABHINANDAN INVESTMENT LTD

gains‟ and „Income from other sources‟ or of income by way of interest on securities.” It was highlighted that in the present case, money which had flowed from JISCO came back to it with financing from the UTI and the assessee also claimed loss in the year under consideration, to claim set off against an income of the present year

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABHINANDAN INVESTMENT LTD

gains‟ and „Income from other sources‟ or of income by way of interest on securities.” It was highlighted that in the present case, money which had flowed from JISCO came back to it with financing from the UTI and the assessee also claimed loss in the year under consideration, to claim set off against an income of the present year

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ABHINANDAN INVESTMENT LTD

gains‟ and „Income from other sources‟ or of income by way of interest on securities.” It was highlighted that in the present case, money which had flowed from JISCO came back to it with financing from the UTI and the assessee also claimed loss in the year under consideration, to claim set off against an income of the present year

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

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

carried out by the Directorate of Investigation, has been thoroughly analysed by the Assessing Officer to prove that the assessee has introduced bogus long term capital gains in her books of account by routing her unaccounted income through a tax evasion scheme. The statement of brokers engaged in providing bogus long term capital gains clearly proves that Kappac Pharma

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

forward, especially considering that the said group had no presence in Asia and agreed to the business proposal. As per the appellant, it was agreed between the parties that in consideration of the efforts put in by the said management team (including appellant), in establishing the business in India, after five years from the start of the prospective company

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

capital gain 76,12,50,000 Total loss 29,690 Assessed at loss of Rs. 29,690/-. The assessee is not allowed to carry forward

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting