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

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

iii) of proviso to\nsection 245R(2).”\niv. The AAR flagging the issues to the assessing and appellate\nauthorities for examining the transaction to be one for tax\navoidance:\n3. Order of the Assessing Officer:\nAfter multiple hearings and analysis of facts, legal\nprovisions and judicial decisions, the AO finalized the assessment\nin detailed orders dated 13.04.2021. The AO denied

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

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)

iii) to (v) as mentioned above and question referred by the Ld. Accountant Member are relating to issue of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for non- compliance of provisions of Section 54F of the Act. These questions are being answered as under: 7.1 Admittedly the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuing notice

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) of\nthe Act during the ongoing assessment proceedings. The assessee\nsubmitted that he had sold immovable property being House no.-D-4, 1st\nFloor, Vivekanandpuri, Lucknow, to Smt. Meena Agarwal and Shri Rajiv\nKumar Agarwal for a consideration of Rs.45,95,177/-. The 'Details\nInstrument in short' with respect to the sale of the said property has been

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)

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 is called neither the assessee nor the representative of the assessee appeared before the Bench to advanced 5 Sachin Kanodia

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

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

142(1) of the Act observed that the net loss on account of foreign exchange transaction and translation amounting to Rs.17,67,88,271/- is on account of capital assets acquired by the assessee from abroad and therefore, not liable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) r/w section 43A of the Act. Pragati Power Corporation vs. ACIT 31.1 In response

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

capital, transportation, level of the market, i.e. retail or wholesale and so forth. The Rules and the analytical steps. 71. Sub-Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section

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

142(1) dated\n02.12.2021 Reply filed on 23.03.2023 and copy is placed on P. No.\n98 to 108 & 128 to 135 of the Paper Book-2 filed on 09.01.2024.\n\n7.2.4 Details of these replies submitted before AO have been filed\nbefore me by appellant. However, AO has ignored them. In view of the\nfacts that these expenses are supported

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (i) any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

142(1) of the Act were\nissued and served upon the assessee.\n\n3.\nThe assessee is a Director in M/s. KTV Projects Pvt. Ltd. and received\nsalary from the same. Further, the assessee declared income from capital gain and\nincome from other sources during the year under consideration. In response to\nthe above notices, Ld. AR of the assessee

CK INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-6(1), DELHI

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

capital gain has a beyond scope of section\n143(1) of the Act. Addition of Rs.3,46,97,520/- on account of\ncapital gain is contrary to section 50C of the Act. Reliance was\nplaced on order dated 17.05.2023 in ITA No,2200/Del/2022 in\nthe case of Shankar Dayal HUF VS. ADIT. Order dated\n12.03.2025 in ITA No.5292/Del/2025

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

142(1) of the Act were issued which were duly complied with. (Please refer page 34 of Paper book). 1.3 That on 28.09.2021 the learned Assessing Officer passed draft order u/s 144C of the Act wherein assessed income is proposed at Rs. 33,60,600/-, proposing following additions: Sr.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. i) Short Term Capital Gain: Being capital

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

capital gains from sale of listed shares on which STT was paid. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Though the proceedings of assessment for the AY 2014-15 were going on with the Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(2), notice U/S 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19-09-2016 was received

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

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) along with questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee. In response, ld. AR of the assessee submitted the relevant information through ITBA Portal. Further AO observed that during the relevant assessment year, assessee has income from capital gain and income from other sources. 3. During assessment proceedings