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

35. We note from Article 13 with respect to capital gains that gains derived by a resident of a contracting State from the alienation of any property other than those mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Article shall be taxable only in that State i.e. in the present case in Mauritius and not in India

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: Provided that in case the aforesaid arrangement involves a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, the amount of profits from such transaction shall be determined having regard

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

35,800/- and Long-Term 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

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

35,800/- and Long-Term 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

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

35,779/- earned by the assessee from transactions in\nshares is taxable in India as Capital Gain as per Income Tax Act 1961 as\nper Article 13(A) of DTAA, the same is added back to the income of the\nassessee. The penalty u/s 270A for underreporting of income is being\ninitiated.\n\n4. Aggrieved with the order

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)

10/- at the rate of Rs.491/- by any person and the assessee's contention that such transaction is genuine and credible and arguing to accept such contention would only make the decision of the judicial authorities a fallacy. 11. The evidences put forth by the Revenue regarding the entry operation fairly leads to a conclusion that the assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

35,648 Dep as per Income Tax Act 21,40,736 Sub Total 93,48,282.13 Filing fees disallowed (58,000) Disallowance u/s 14A (2,51,427) Loss on sale of assets (1,34,838) Donation (3,00,000) Sub Total 7,44,265 Total Expenses claimed 86,04,017.13 The AO disallowed the above expenses for the reason that

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

35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-, being the expenditure on account of foreseen price increase (in short "FPI). disregarding the consistent and accepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last

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

35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-, being the expenditure on account of foreseen price increase (in short "FPI). disregarding the consistent and accepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last

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

35,294/- should be assessed under the head capital gains not under the head income from business and profession. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I.T.A. No.5656/Del/2019 2 the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO under section 14A Rs.1,23,33,363/- ignoring the fact that

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 May 2016 and 29 August 2016 further clarify that the amendments made to the India-Mauritius DTAA will be applicable only from A.Y. 2018-19 that too on capital gains arising on the securities purchased after 1 April 2017. 25. Without prejudice to the fact that the said Article 27A does not apply

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

35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred in making/ upholding the above disallowance without considering the fact that unlike earlier years assessments / appeals all the necessary details relevant to depreciation allowance claim for 2013-14 were on record. 4. On the facts

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

35,078/- claimed by the appellant under section 32 of the Act. 3.1 That on facts and in law the AO/ CIT(A) erred in making/ upholding the above disallowance without considering the fact that unlike earlier years assessments / appeals all the necessary details relevant to depreciation allowance claim for 2013-14 were on record. 4. On the facts

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

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

35(1)(iv) of\nthe Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant.\n6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in\nmaking disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-. being the expenditure on account\nof foreseen price increase (in short \"FPI), disregarding the consistent and\naccepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last

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

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10 of the order\nof my ld. Brother is reproduced as under:-\n“9. From perusal of finding of Ld. CIT(A) in light of grounds of appeal, it is\napparent on record that Ld. AO disputed the use of land for agriculture purpose\nand disallowed deduction under Section 54B of the Act. Ld. AO had\na) Sale deed pertaining