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

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

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

138. wherein the court after referring to the above decision in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) held that it is clear that whereas interest under section 34 of the Act of 1894 is not treated as a part of income subject to tax, the interest earned under section 28, which is on enhanced compensation, is treated as an accretion

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

capital gain account before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31.07.2012 is ineligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act which he disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee (refer para 7.2, 7.3, 7.10 and 7.11 of the assessment order). 13. As stated earlier

SAC FINANCE COMANY LTD,HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain of INR 16,69,27,557. OUR CONTENTIONS Ld. AO exceeded its jurisdiction by not following the order of Ld. TPO [Ground 3(a) of our appeal] TPO order-refer para 3.1 to para 5 on page 138 of Paper-book 1. As per the provision of section

M/S. MADURA BIOTECH (P) LTD.,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

capital gain. Accordingly, findings of CIT(A) sustained and this ground is decided against the assessee. 9. Ground no. 3 of appeal is directed against denying deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act, for business income. Assessee has shown income from business at Rs.85,33,519/- and has claimed deduction u/s 80-IC of the entire amount. AO 11 observed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. AMIRA APPARELS LTD, DELHI

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4473/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Amira Apparels Ltd. Room No.375, Central Revenue Building, Vs. 1/16, East Patel Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca2992A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 50 of the Act. It was the submission that as per para 16.2 at page 10 of the Ld. AO’s order the depreciated value of the assets in question would be negligible at the time of sale, considering the passage of time. The Ld. DR also pointed out that in this regard before the AO no documents pertaining

MRS. NEETA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. CIT (APPEALS)-XXVI, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

capital gains (supra) is concerned, Mr. Jain takes us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion on the said former issue reading as under: “7.5 The admitted cost of old property is Rs.1,32,50,000/- (cost of entire property: Rs.1,25,00,000/- plus stamp duty Rs.7,50,000/-). Thus, to arrive the cost of acquisition

MRS. NEETA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

capital gains (supra) is concerned, Mr. Jain takes us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion on the said former issue reading as under: “7.5 The admitted cost of old property is Rs.1,32,50,000/- (cost of entire property: Rs.1,25,00,000/- plus stamp duty Rs.7,50,000/-). Thus, to arrive the cost of acquisition

MRS. NEETA GUPTA,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

capital gains (supra) is concerned, Mr. Jain takes us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion on the said former issue reading as under: “7.5 The admitted cost of old property is Rs.1,32,50,000/- (cost of entire property: Rs.1,25,00,000/- plus stamp duty Rs.7,50,000/-). Thus, to arrive the cost of acquisition

SHRI BHIM SAI JAIN ,BALLABGARH FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD 1(1)FARIDABAD , HARYANA FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, the Tribunal in ITA No.5576/Del/2018 dated 11.01.2019 restored the issue to the assessing officer with following observations: “11.1 It is an admitted fact that the 12700 shares of M/s Pawansut Holdings Ltd. were sold on 10th March, 2014 for a total consideration of Rs.23,74,138

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

capital gains in the other country. 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 71 of 174 48. The Supreme Court further referred to the commentary of Klaus Vogel that Double Taxation Convention establishes an independent mechanism to avoid double taxation through restriction of tax claims in areas where overlapping tax claims are expected, or at least theoretically possible. In other words

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(38) were duly meet by the assessee and the same was also accepted by the department as no adverse inference was made in respect of same. The details of capital gain were duly disclosed in the Income Tax Return and there was nowhere any concealment of income on the part of the assessee. However at a later stage

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SUDHARSHNA ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

138/-. The AO 2 CO No. 157/Del/2016 observed that the assessee had sold 500,000 shares during AY 2003-04 at Rs. 50 lakhs. The AO had proceeded to value the shares by obtaining the details of assets held by the company. Based on that valuation, he determined the value per share at Rs. 51.34. The AO adopted the same

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(38) were duly meet by the assessee and the same was also accepted by the department as no adverse inference was made in respect of same. The details of capital gain were duly disclosed in the Income Tax Return and there was nowhere any concealment of income on the part of the assessee. However at a later stage

MULKH RAJ MEHTA AND SONS HUF,HISAR vs. PR. CIT, ROHTAK

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

138/(2014] 367 ITR 498(SC); UOI v. Hari Singh [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC). Being so the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 17.04.2021 was not amenable to revision under section 263 of the Act. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT, CIRCLE- 30(1), NEW DELHI vs. UMESH KUMAR ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Acit, M/S. Umesh Kumar Arora, Circle-30(1), C-15, Greater Kailash Enclave-1, New Delhi Delhi-1100 48 Pan Aaapa4832A Pan :Aaapa4832A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. Since you have claimed an LTCG of Rs.53,83,045/-, an amount of Rs.1,61,491/- i.e. 3% of Rs.53,83,045/- is being added u/s. 69C as unexplained expenditure. Further, purchase value of Rs.1,50,000/- is added back to your income as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C. From the above portion of the impugned order

HECTOR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 29, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Capital Gain\nu/s 45 of the Act.\nAggrieved by the assessment order dated\n26/03/2022, Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds\nmentioned above.\n4.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that\nduring the search operation dated 14/10/2020, no incriminating\nmaterial was seized in the Assessee's premises and the impugned\naddition