SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

25 lakhs for violation of various provisions of SEBI Act and Rules. Again vide order dated 22.04.2022 under section 15-I of SEBI Act, SEBI imposed a further penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs upon the company and its directors/key persons for preferential allotment of shares just prior to filing of prospectus for IPO on 13.01.2013 in violation of extant rules

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

iii) Relevant Articles of India - Mauritius DTAA, post amendment, wherein, on reading Article 13(3A), it becomes clear that the said amendment is only applicable for investments made after 01.04.2017, whereas, in the case of assessee - appellant investments were made much prior to 01.04.2017. Thus, still provision of Article 13(4) will apply and the capital gain

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

10 of 23 (Rules, for short) prescribes and states the table of rates at which depreciation is admissible and is divided into different parts and sub headings. Rates of depreciation have been prescribed. Assets of different types which have been prescribed same rate of depreciation have been clubbed and put together. Appendix does not stipulate and provide that each unit

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)

10 bn and had a presence in more than 25 countries across the 5 continents (in 2011-12). It operates in several sectors such as shipping, oil & gas, power, steel, exploration and production of oil and gas, ports etc. It had raised a debt of over USD 5 billion from reputed overseas lenders and the shares of some

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)

iii) To hold section 68 etc does not apply to sale of shares and that too sans credit in books of account maintained by assessee; iv) To restore returned income v) Any other appropriate relief.” 3. When the Appeal is called neither the assessee nor the representative of the assessee appeared before the Bench to advanced 5 Sachin Kanodia

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", do not apply in the case of computation of income from insurance business. The effect of the non-obstante clause so far as the earlier part of section 44 is concerned, therefore, is that the provisions of section 44 will prevail notwithstanding the fact that there are contrary provisions in the Act relating

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

25 11 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVIII, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 20.03.2019 arising from the assessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

25. Section 27B (1) of the IA mandates that no insurer carrying on general insurance business shall "invest or keep invested any part of his assets otherwise than in any of the following approved investments." These 'approved investments are set out in clauses (a) to (j) there under. Section 27B (4) states that an insurer "shall not invest or keep

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

25. Section 27B (1) of the IA mandates that no insurer carrying on general insurance business shall "invest or keep invested any part of his assets otherwise than in any of the following approved investments." These 'approved investments are set out in clauses (a) to (j) there under. Section 27B (4) states that an insurer "shall not invest or keep

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

25,800/\n\n3. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Assessment Unit has erred in law and on facts in re-\ncomputing income from sale of property on 14.05.2019 for Rs.\n10,11,00,000/- as business Income. The fact that the property\nwas shown in FY 2010-11 as Inventory

CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,HISSAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

25,74,64,090/-. 9. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee filed an appeal before Your Honours. No condition of filing of return of income to claim the exemption under section 10(23C) of the Act 10. Provisions of section 10(23) (iiiab) so far as is relevant for the present purpose is extracted hereunder: "10. Incomes

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10 year period of the lease agreement dated 24th February 1994 expired, the land and building reverted to the Assessee and was sold by it to three unrelated parties. The Assessee had sought to bring the above facts on record by filing CM No.19803/2014. However, the said application was dismissed by the Court on 4th February, 2015, on the ground

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10 year period of the lease agreement dated 24th February 1994 expired, the land and building reverted to the Assessee and was sold by it to three unrelated parties. The Assessee had sought to bring the above facts on record by filing CM No.19803/2014. However, the said application was dismissed by the Court on 4th February, 2015, on the ground

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

25,00,000/- Less: WDV of the assets sold: ` 2,94,59,400/- ` 4,30,40,600/-” 10. The aforesaid amount of ` 4,30,40,600/- was brought to tax as short term capital gains computed under Section 50(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also negatived the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54EC

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

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

25,157/-. As per the computation of capital gain mechanism on the date of transfer, the capital gains will be determined based on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed executed and the law prescribes claim of deduction of expenditure incurred on such transfer, indexation cost of acquisition and improvement. Therefore, there is no mechanism to determine the notional

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

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

25,157/-. As per the computation of capital gain mechanism on the date of transfer, the capital gains will be determined based on the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed executed and the law prescribes claim of deduction of expenditure incurred on such transfer, indexation cost of acquisition and improvement. Therefore, there is no mechanism to determine the notional