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

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

condone the delay\nin filing of appeal by the appellant. Accordingly, after hearing both the\nparties and in the interest of justice, the delay in filing of appeal was\ncondoned. Further the case was heard on merit. It was contended by\nthe Goan Sabha that there were two reports presented by the Halqa\nPatwari in Court of Revenue Assistant

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

capital gains\".\n\n4. The assessment order does not mention the date on which\nthe shares in question were purchased. We also note that the\nassessment order records that the assessee had converted and\ntransferred the shares in question under the head \"investment\" on 1st\nApril, 2004. This factual position was not disputed or questioned. The\nshares in question were

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

delay of 1726 days in filing the cross objection is condoned. CO No.118/Del/2024 6. During the hearing before us, the assessee reiterated the above fact of inadvertently offering the above capital gains

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 gains was declared/ He observed that statute did not reject or frown upon conversion of stock-in-trade into investment and the said conversion was permissible. Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15th June, 2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates that two portfolios one for stock- in-trade

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 gains was declared/ He observed that statute did not reject or frown upon conversion of stock-in-trade into investment and the said conversion was permissible. Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15th June, 2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates that two portfolios one for stock- in-trade

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gains (‘LTCG’) of Rs.50,44,027/- and the exempted LTCG of Rs.8,90,66,252/-. However, it offered a sum of Rs.8,21,45,406/- as income under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The case was picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.11,75,90,926/- by making

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gains (‘LTCG’) of Rs.50,44,027/- and the exempted LTCG of Rs.8,90,66,252/-. However, it offered a sum of Rs.8,21,45,406/- as income under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The case was picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.11,75,90,926/- by making

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

delay of 42 days in re-filing the appeals is condoned. The applications shall stand disposed of. ITA 168/2024 ITA 169/2024 1. The Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [„ITAT‟] dated 11 August 2023 and has proposed the following questions for our consideration:- “2.1 Whether Ld. ITAT has erred in not considering the observation made

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

delay in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 6 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia 8. The Ground No. 1 is general in nature which requires no adjudication. 9. Ground No. 2 is regarding addition made on account of treating Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

gain time, then the court should lean against\nacceptance of the explanation....\n2.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B.\nDamodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, by referring various to earlier\ndecisions of Superior Courts and held the following principal must be\nkept in mind while considering the application for condonation of\ndelay,\n(i) There

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

In the result appeals preferred by the revenue are dismissed and the\ncross objections preferred by the assessee are allowed\nOrder pronounced in open court on 06

gain time, then the court should lean against\nacceptance of the explanation....\n2.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B.\nDamodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, by referring various to earlier\ndecisions of Superior Courts and held the following principal must be\nkept in mind while considering the application for condonation of\ndelay,\n(i) There

CHOWDRY ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 taken together as they relate to the Long Term capital gains

AMIT GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD - 1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryamit Gupta Vs. Ito D-63, Gf, Kaushambi, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad, Up-201 012 Ghaziabad

Capital Gains of assessee’s share. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 09.09.2019 in Appeal No.619937710170518 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “Under the facts and circumstances

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHASHI CHARLA

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. These applications stand disposed of. ITA 1322/2009, ITA 1323/2009, ITA 1326/2009 & ITA 1328/2009 1. These appeals filed by the revenue pertain to the block period 01.04.1996 to 24.09.2002 and arise out of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal‟s order dated 29.12.2008 in IT (SS) A Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 95/Del/2007

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHASHI CHARLA

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. These applications stand disposed of. ITA 1322/2009, ITA 1323/2009, ITA 1326/2009 & ITA 1328/2009 1. These appeals filed by the revenue pertain to the block period 01.04.1996 to 24.09.2002 and arise out of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal‟s order dated 29.12.2008 in IT (SS) A Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 95/Del/2007

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHASHI CHARLA

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. These applications stand disposed of. ITA 1322/2009, ITA 1323/2009, ITA 1326/2009 & ITA 1328/2009 1. These appeals filed by the revenue pertain to the block period 01.04.1996 to 24.09.2002 and arise out of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal‟s order dated 29.12.2008 in IT (SS) A Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 95/Del/2007

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHASHI CHARLA

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned. These applications stand disposed of. ITA 1322/2009, ITA 1323/2009, ITA 1326/2009 & ITA 1328/2009 1. These appeals filed by the revenue pertain to the block period 01.04.1996 to 24.09.2002 and arise out of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal‟s order dated 29.12.2008 in IT (SS) A Nos. 92, 93, 94 and 95/Del/2007