DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain can be altered by way of rectification on subsequent change in sale consideration by High Court. Thus, he submitted that, this revised return, in essence, amounted to an application u/s 154

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital were all non-\nresidents on which provisions of section 56(2)(vib) is not applicable. Hence, as\nper the submission of the assessee company and records available, the\ncontention of the assessee is found to be in order.\n4.1 It is further worthwhile to mention that assessee has filed show cause\nnotice u/s 263 of the IT Act issued

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

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

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

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s. 292C of the Act relied on by the ld.DR are available against the person in whose possession the books of account other documents etc., were found. The presumption is not available against the third party and transactions are through Demat account. The assessee filed all the documents and these purchases were made by the assessee through account payee cheque

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s. 292C of the Act relied on by the ld.DR are available against the person in whose possession the books of account other documents etc., were found. The presumption is not available against the third party and transactions are through Demat account. The assessee filed all the documents and these purchases were made by the assessee through account payee cheque

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

OPUS REALITY DEVELOPMENT LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-225/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2009-10) Opus Reality Development Ltd. Vs Acit Circle-13(1) 404, Roots Tower, New Delhi District Centre, Laxmi Nagar (Respondent) Delhi Aaaco9775H (Appellant)

rectification order u/s 154. 8. We have perused all the records and heard both the parties. Section 71(2) makes it clear that in respect of any assessment year, when the net result of the computation under any head of income, other than ‘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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

u/s 143 (1) of the Act by the AO's order dated 24th November 1988. However, consequent upon the developments in relation to the assessment proceedings for AY 1989-90, ITA Nos.20, 21 & 24 of 2003 and WTA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2003 Page 15 of 39 the assessment for AY 1988-89 was reopened under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

u/s 143 (1) of the Act by the AO's order dated 24th November 1988. However, consequent upon the developments in relation to the assessment proceedings for AY 1989-90, ITA Nos.20, 21 & 24 of 2003 and WTA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2003 Page 15 of 39 the assessment for AY 1988-89 was reopened under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

u/s 143 (1) of the Act by the AO's order dated 24th November 1988. However, consequent upon the developments in relation to the assessment proceedings for AY 1989-90, 2015:DHC:10010-DB ITA Nos.20, 21 & 24 of 2003 and WTA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2003 Page 15 of 39 the assessment for AY 1988-89 was reopened

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

u/s 143 (1) of the Act by the AO's order dated 24th November 1988. However, consequent upon the developments in relation to the assessment proceedings for AY 1989-90, 2015:DHC:10010-DB ITA Nos.20, 21 & 24 of 2003 and WTA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2003 Page 15 of 39 the assessment for AY 1988-89 was reopened

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHARDA KOCHHAR

The appeal is disposed of,

154 ITR 473 and CIT Vs. Devki Nand, 138 ITR 225 and it was held that Section 45(5) would not be applicable as the money had been paid on furnishing of bank guarantee etc. 4. The issue in question is in fact covered by the decision of the 2014:DHC:3345-DB ITA 171/2001 Page 4 of 10 Supreme

M/S. PEETHAMBRA GRANITES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Sh. R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 1188/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09

u/s 154/147/143(3) which is illegal, unjustified and bad in law. 2. In confirming the order of the Assessing Officer who was totally unjustified in adjusting capital gains against business losses where assessee has availed option of not adjusting business losses against capital gains and paying proper taxes on capital gains and carrying business losses.” Brief facts of the case