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

154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 5. With regard to Ground Nos.4 to 4.3 regarding disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, ld. AR submitted that the assessee had, during the year under consideration, earned dividend income amounting to Rs.211,07,39,103, which was claimed as exempt u/s

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.

Capital Gain and passed the order under section 154 / 143(3) of the Act. 9. It is a fact on record that after passing the above rectification order by the A.O., the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s

FEDERAL MOGUL HOLDINGS, LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTL TAX 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

u/s 154 of the I. T. Act is rejected.” 3. Aggrieved with the said rectification order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). ITA No.- 4180/Del/2025 Federal Mogul Holdings Ltd. 3.1 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that as per Article 13 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty, the capital gains

ANDREY ANDREEV,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-(03), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2002/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Andrey Andreev, Vs Cit(Intl. Taxation)-03, C/O Sushil Budhia Associates, New Delhi Ca, 1103, Level 11, Universal Majestic, Behind Rbk International School, Ghatkopar Mankhurd, Link Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400043 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpa5288P Assessee By : Sh. Y. K. Kapur, Adv. & Sh. Bhushan Kapur, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

gains” and taxed accordingly vide Assessment Order dated 31.03.2015. Later, a rectification order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.07.2016 was passed 2 Andrey Andreev wherein deduction claim u/s 54 of Rs.4,86,22,366/- has been allowed resulting into refund of Rs.76,44,140/- owing to computation of the taxable capital

STANDARD CASTINGS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-24(1), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gains under the row ‘other sources’ even though assessee has not declared any income from other sources. This mistake was apparent and CPC has not considered the above mistake in the return of income filed 7 by the assessee. It is fact on record that assessee also field rectification applicable u/s 154

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]

u/s 154 of the Act of the assessee was rejected by the AO and the appeal against the said rejection was also dismissed by the ld. CIT(A). On further appeal, the co-ordinate bench of CO No.118/Del/2024 the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee relying upon Circular No. 14 of 1955 dated April 11, 1955 of the CBDT

JAGAT PAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain of Rs 5868776/- has been taxed @ flat 30%. The Assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as there

JAGATPAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain of Rs 5868776/- has been taxed @ flat 30%. The Assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as there

KAUTILYA SHARES AND STOCKS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 14(2), DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

capital gain of Rs.1,65,27,700/- on transfer of agricultural land. Accordingly, he passed a rectification order u/s 154

RAJESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

u/s 143(1) & 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance; be it against the CPC, Bangalore’s section 143(1) processing dated 24.12.2021 or it’s section 154 rectification order

RAJESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

u/s 143(1) & 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance; be it against the CPC, Bangalore’s section 143(1) processing dated 24.12.2021 or it’s section 154 rectification order

ACIT CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INT. TAX., NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN GOVIL, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 7525/Del/2019 (A.Y 2014-15)

rectification order u/s 154 R/W Section 143 (3) of the Act dated 29/06/2018, the Ld. A.O. has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54/54F of the Act on the following grounds. 3 ITA. 7525/Del/2019 ACIT Vs. Rajan Govil, ND “ 1. Exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with respect to the capital gain

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

u/s 154 dt. 15-12-2021 more than 4 years had expired from end of the A.Y. 204-15 and no action under section 154 was legally possible for assessment year 2014-15. Therefore, it seems that the Ld. AO erroneously issued notice under section 154 for assessment year 2015-16 denying the vested right of the assessee to carry

ITO, HISAR vs. SH. SANT SINGH PROP., HISAR

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

capital gain a/c in response to notice clearly mentioning the fact that this has been submitted at the time of assessment and duly considered by AO at the time of assessment. That in para no. 5 Learned AO has stated that no order u/s 154 was passed by the department. In this regard it is submitted that assessee was issued

BEST AUTO LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

u/s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The ld. counsel submitted that the assessee before the Assessing Officer submitted copy of return of income along with computation of taxable income for AY 2013-14 and in the computation also claimed indexed cost of acquisition of the property sold by the assessee during FY 2012-13 and hence

BEST AUTO LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

u/s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. The ld. counsel submitted that the assessee before the Assessing Officer submitted copy of return of income along with computation of taxable income for AY 2013-14 and in the computation also claimed indexed cost of acquisition of the property sold by the assessee during FY 2012-13 and hence

REEVA SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 31(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Gain on sale of Property (Northern side) 36,74,449/- Exemption claimed u/s 54 on Purchase of immovable house Property on 13.01.2012 81,81,278/- ………. From the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the assessee has purchased the new capital asset (on 13.01.2012) beyond the permissible period of one year before the date on which the transfer took place

BIJENDER SINGH THAKRAN,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Appeal.” Ground No. 1 & 2:

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated 07.02.2019 had reduced the addition on account of long term capital gain