UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 7. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi assumed u/s 263 of the 7 Uday Kumar Vaish Act. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the facts

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

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay. But certainly same cannot be agitated by the assessee before us in cross objection. 22. Even otherwise if the argument of the learned authorised representative is accepted it will make the provisions of section 263, 264 of the income tax act redundant if the assessment is subject matter of appeal. Clearly the provisions of section

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

SURAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

delay should be condoned and justice should be done. Therefore assessee is submitted that the previously mentioned grounds are permitted to be urged which have not been raised due to incorrect legal advice and documents. The learned authorised representative reiterated all these above arguments and pressed that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted. 9. The learned

SULTAN SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

delay should be condoned and justice should be done. Therefore assessee is submitted that the previously mentioned grounds are permitted to be urged which have not been raised due to incorrect legal advice and documents. The learned authorised representative reiterated all these above arguments and pressed that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted. 9. The learned

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