ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

133(6) of the Act. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee had also issued and It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee had also issued and It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee had also issued and allotted 899 SEED Compulsory Convertible Preference Shares (CCPS) with a face allotted 899 SEED Compulsory

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

6 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 being more than 24 months, the gain derived has to be treated as long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept assessee’s submission. He observed that the agreement dated 17.12.2014 is merely a draft agreement, hence, cannot be considered as final agreement. Thus, he observed that the assessee

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s.\nHPC Biosciences Ltd. and claimed the exemption of Rs.41,80,283/-. By relying\nthe Investigation report of the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata and the\nrelevant modus operandi adopted by various beneficiaries by opting exemption\nu/s 10(38) of the Act, the Ld. AO observed that his M/s. HPC Biosciences Ltd. is\nalso

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

6) of the Income Tax [Appellate Tribunal] Rules, 1963. The case laws referred to and relied upon have been taken into account. 13. The substantive issue that has arisen for consideration is whether in a situation where a part of sale consideration agreed between the transferor and transferee is kept in Escrow Account towards unforeseen contingencies and not released

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEVINE INFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

gained control of this company. 5. In fact during the search in the premises of Shri Satish Kumar Pawa certain incriminating documents were found and seized as Annexure A-2 showing the shares of M/s. Index Securities & Research Private Limited standing in the name of various investors who has given share capital/share premium during the year under consideration were transferred

HEWITT ASSOCIATES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2007-08

capital adjustment. Based on the above submission, we request your goodself to rectify the above- mentioned defects by passing a suitable order under section 154 of the Act and accordingly issue the revised assessment order. ------------------------------ Unquote 2. In addition to the above-mentioned prima facie errors, the DRP has grossly erred in confirming the addition

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

6 the Act because she purchased two properties namely property No. 345, Block-C in Greater Noida for Rs. 79,71,600/- on 25.10.2011 and property No. 32-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi for Rs. 65,60,000/- on 23.11.2011 aggregating in all to Rs. 1,45,31,600/- leaving capital gain balance

VIPIN JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

Capital Gain is allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. Against the order of ITAT in Vipin Jain’s case, the Department filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Court has decided the issue against the Department by observing as under :- “11. We have heard the learned counsel appearing

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

section 112A, inserted by Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 01.04.2019. 6.6. He further elucidated that assessee is a habitual investor having portfolio of investment in shares and has earned capital gain both in preceding and succeeding years. Ld. Counsel referred to the details of investment and capital gain in preceding and succeeding years which is extracted below

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

section 112A, inserted by Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 01.04.2019. 6.6. He further elucidated that assessee is a habitual investor having portfolio of investment in shares and has earned capital gain both in preceding and succeeding years. Ld. Counsel referred to the details of investment and capital gain in preceding and succeeding years which is extracted below

DCIT, CIRCLE-43(1), NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

capital gains of Rs 63,06,402/- claimed by the assessee as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act are as under:- S no. No of sale of shares Cost of shares LTCG shares 1. Date Sale price Date Cost price

DCIT CIRCLE-43(1), NEW DELHI vs. KRISHAN KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

capital gains of Rs 63,06,402/- claimed by the assessee as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act are as under:- S no. No of sale of shares Cost of shares LTCG shares 1. Date Sale price Date Cost price

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

133,46,92,080/- after making addition of *44,77,708/- on account of disallowance under Section 24(b) of the Act and also disallowed a sum of ₹40,10,848/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter ‘the rules'). The PCIT called and examined the records and accordingly, notice under Section

PREET SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 32(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

capital gain to acquire agricultural land. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee produced agreements dated 2.11.2013 and 15.1.2014 towards purchase of new asset (land) to corroborate the deduction claimed. Since the registered sale deeds were not produced, the Assessing Officer made independent enquiry under section 133(6

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain and interest income etc. Further, notices under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee through ITBA (Income Tax Business Application) on 31/01/2018 asking for various details which was responded by the assessee by filing details/submission on 15/02/2018. Notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were also issued on 15/09/2018, 22/11/2018 and thereafter asking

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

section 133(6) of the Act to appellant (available at page 156 of paperbook) to furnish various details/information, including, inter alia: Details of payment of sale consideration and tax deduction thereon; Valuation of such shares acquired by the appellant; Explanation regarding materialization of the transaction on 50% of the market value. It was submitted that the aforesaid queries were duly

ACIT CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHU GARG, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 54F) Short Term Capital Gains 1. Patudi Nabab – 1 – Rs.5,58,475/- 2. Patudi Nabab – 2 – Rs.4,24,000/- Total – Rs.9,82,000/- 6. The Assessing Officer examined each transaction and re- determined the capital gains. 1. Deed No. 72 – Rs.5,93,000/- 7. The details submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer pertaining to the transactions

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

6. C. S. Atwal vs. CIT Ludhiana & Another (2015) 59 Taxman.com 359 (P & H) : There can be no "transfer" u/s 2(47(v) of the Act read with sec.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 under an unregistered agreement in view of sub-section (1A) of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Also, there is no transfer under

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

6. C. S. Atwal vs. CIT Ludhiana & Another (2015) 59 Taxman.com 359 (P & H) : There can be no "transfer" u/s 2(47(v) of the Act read with sec.53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 under an unregistered agreement in view of sub-section (1A) of section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Also, there is no transfer under