SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate authority has erred in not allowing assessee’s claim u/s 54 of the act for ₹ 37,913,760/– in respect of investment in residential flat in Mumbai. 3. In ITA number 6726/Del/2014, the learned Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 53 (1), New Delhi

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate authority has erred in not allowing assessee’s claim u/s 54 of the act for ₹ 37,913,760/– in respect of investment in residential flat in Mumbai. 3. In ITA number 6726/Del/2014, the learned Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 53 (1), New Delhi

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

142(1) and 143(2) were issued. A sum of Rs.8,60,1600/- was shown by the assessee as the proceeds of the sale of assets, being land. It appears that M/s. Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. (APIL) owned certain plots of land earmarked for schools, dispensaries, etc. The assessee in furtherance of its objects to open a school, entered

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)

section 6(3) of the Act:  Assessee company acted merely as a puppet and agreed to show the ownership in its own name as a mere name lender and without any knowledge, authority and decision- making owned in its name by the beneficial owners based in India;  ECOM/ECL are nothing but shell companies which have been used as a conduit

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 30.11.2016. In response to the notices, the counsel of assessee Shri Gaurav Singhal, Chartered Accountant attended the assessment proceedings and filed necessary information and details. On completion of assessment proceeding, Ld. AO passed the order dated 22.12.2016 making an addition of Rs.1,17,527/- being interest from S.B. Account jointly held

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

142(1) of the Act which forms part of the assessment order at pages 10-16 containing therein inter alia information/details available in the public domain enclosing as Annexure A comparative profit and loss account and balance sheet of the company M/s. HPC Biosciences Limited for various years stating that even an investor with risk appetite on a higher side

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

142(3);\nITAT orders vide ITA No.3523/Del/2013 dated 13.12.2013 in the case of\nM K Chabbra vs. ITO No.3523/Del/2013_and ITA No. 1026/Del/2016\ndated 06.02.2018 in the case of Kamla Devi Sharma v/s ITO Jaipur.\n6.1 Reliance was placed on ITAT's order in the case of ITO v/s Babita Gupta\nITA 5313/Del/2019 as under:\n\"In this case assessee purchased

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

ii) during that year, the control and management of its affairs is\nsituated wholly in India.\nDue to the requirement that whole of control and management\nshould be situated in India and that too for whole of the year, the\ncondition has been rendered to be practically inapplicable. A\ncompany can easily avoid becoming a resident by simply holding

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 :-

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, ld. AR for the assessee attended from time to time and 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 and hold shares, stocks, debentures, debenture stocks, bonds, obligations and securities

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

section is not utilized wholly or partly for the purchase or construction of the new asset within the period specified in sub-s. (1), then,— (i) the amount not so utilised shall be charged under s. 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1). The AO had not only detected the failure of the assessee to declare\nthis transaction of capital gain arising from sale of residential\nproperty, but also detected undisclosed capital gain on sale of\nshares of Sankalp Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. which was\nrelated to transactions of the penny stock, Radford Global Ltd.\nwhich was ascertained

SAIF PARTNERS INDIA IV LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION-3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

142(1) of the Act issued by your office dated 8 November 2019 (enclosed as Annexure 1) seeking information and details of the Assessee. In this regard, we respectfully submit the following: In response to query No.1, No. 13, No. 14, No. 15, No. 16, No. 17, No.18, No 20,No. 21, No. 22 and No. 26 The Company

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

142 to 445 of the paper book).\n\n• The Assessee was always of the view that the gains from mutual\nfund units were not taxable in India under Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius\nDTAA.\n\n• However, since the learned AO has considered such capital gains to\nbe taxable in India, the Assessee would like to submit that

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

ii) Whether the Tribunal can bring new facts on record gathered from external sources / public domain, whereas such facts do not form part of the orders passed by lower authorities or records for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act? (iii) Whether in facts of the case, penalty levied u/s. 271(1

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)

ii) To quash assessment order and ld CIT-A order for being passed in serious violation of audi altrem partem 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

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

142(1) were issued. On completion of proceedings ld. AO vide order dated 22.12.2017 held that an impugned of Rs.35,00,000/- qualifies for deduction u/s 54 of the Act and the amount of Rs.6,66,46,841/- did not qualify deduction and same was added back to the income of assessee under the head of long term capital gain