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

capital gains tax liability in India. This circular was a clear enunciation of the provisions contained in the DTAC, which would have overriding effect over the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by virtue of section 90(1) of the Act. If, in the teeth of this clarification, the assessing officers chose to ignore

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

b), the cost of any improvement in relation to a capital\nasset means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in\nmaking any additions or alterations to the capital asset on or\nafter 1st April, 1981 by the previous owner or the assessee.\nAdmittedly, the asset which was declared as capital asset by\nnotification became the asset of the assessee

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)

B-III -Analysis of Board minutes and various tables 13 (I) ECL- Mauritius; persons authorised as per Board minutes along 120-125 with purpose of authorisation; 14 (II) ECOM- Mauritius; persons authorised as per Board minutes 126-133 along with purpose of authorisation 15 (III) ECML- Mauritius; persons authorised as per Board minutes 134-136 along with purpose of authorisation

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

B. Vasanta, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 19.04.2024 Date of pronouncement 18.07.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT Captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 14.03.2022 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year

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

2)(vilb) on this issue is not adjudicated since full facts are\nneeded for proper adjudication. In other words, this ground is dismissed as not\nadjudicated.\nTherefore, the addition of Rs.418,66,34,625 u/s.56(2)(viib) made by the\nFAO/NFAC is fully restored in its entirety by treating the Rectification Order\ndated 17th Jan 2020 passed u/s.154

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

119/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2016, the Assessing Officer made certain additions/disallowances. The assessee filed appeal before the learned

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

M/S. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 14A by the Assessing Officer for calculation of income which does not form part of the total income. The assessee had submitted detailed calculation before the ld. CIT(A), in which he has already disallowed a sum of Rs.1,05,329/- whereas the Assessing Officer has mentioned in his order only Rs.971/-. The ld. CIT(A) after discussing

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

B, 3rd Floor, Central Circle-5, Netaji Subhash Marg, Room No. 361, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. 3rd Floor, ARA Centre, AAAHD4035J Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Assessee by Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. Sh. Sudesh Garg, CA Ms. Sumangla Saxsena, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing 19.07.2016 & 20.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement 19.10.2016 Page 6 ORDER

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

2 of Consolidated FDI Policy (effective from April 5, 2013), which was applicable during the period in question, price of shares of an unlisted Indian company, transferred by resident to a non-resident, shall not be less than fair value determined by a SEBI registered Category I Merchant Banker or Chartered Accountant as per the discounted free cash

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

2)(ix) of the Act are not mutually exclusive since the word “and” has been used in between. Thus, to attract the said provision both the clauses (a) and (b) should be satisfied together. Further, no amount at all was forfeited as is required in the clause (a) above. The amount remained with the assessee was on account

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

2)(ix) of the Act are not mutually exclusive since the word “and” has been used in between. Thus, to attract the said provision both the clauses (a) and (b) should be satisfied together. Further, no amount at all was forfeited as is required in the clause (a) above. The amount remained with the assessee was on account

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

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)(ix) of the Act are not mutually exclusive since the word “and” has been used in between. Thus, to attract the said provision both the clauses (a) and (b) should be satisfied together. Further, no amount at all was forfeited as is required in the clause (a) above. The amount remained with the assessee was on account

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Capital Gain 64,46,187 Income from Other Sources 1,68,98,037 50,90,742 Less : Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 14,22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation and that the assessee

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital expenditure which is allowable to an exempt institution only. 11. In the last point the assessee has argued that the order is not erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue because, the AO had taken one of the possible stands. When two views are possible, and the AO has taken one of the possible views