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)

capital receipt not chargeable to tax. 8.1 Undisputedly, it is a material fact that Ld. AO vide order dated 22.12.2016 under Section 143(3) of the Act, assessed the income of assessee at Rs.33,80,48118 after making an addition of Rs.1,17,527/- being interest from saving bank account jointly held by assessee and his father. Ld. AO assessed

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

143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) for the AY 2018-19 pursuant to the directions of the DRP order dated 25.04.2022 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act. The assessee in its appeal raised the following grounds: - I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 1. “That the Ld.AO/DRP has grossly erred both on facts and in law while making an addition

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.03.2014 for AY 2012-13 and 31.03.2015 for AY 2013-14 by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Identical issue is involved in both these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 30.03.2014 for AY 2012-13 and 31.03.2015 for AY 2013-14 by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Identical issue is involved in both these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order

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 :-

143 (3) of the Act :- S.No. Addition Amount Pg. No. in CIT (Appeal) order 1 Capital Gain Income treated as Business Rs.36,79,65,338/- 67 Income (Long term capital gain and Short term capital gain) Long term Capital Gain on sale of Rs.33,17,66,907/- HCL Group Shares held in capacity of promoter treated as business income Long

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

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

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)

capital gains taxation by the AO 6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of Para 11 (page 24-27) ECL the existing arrangement Para 11 (page 23-25) ECOM 6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom Para 12 (page 27-33) ECL Business from Onshore to offshore Para 12 (page 26-31) ECOM 6.3 Acquisition

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment\nthrough CASS for limited scrutiny based on following reasons:\n1. “Substantial increase in capital in a year”.\n2. \"Large deduction claimed u/s. 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA\".\n3. \"Large long term capital gain

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)

section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961. The said claim of long terms Capital gain of Re 63,01,425/- as exempt income has formed 8 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO the very basis for the selection of the case for scrutiny in CASS. The grounds being interrelated are disposed of together. 5.1.1 It was also noted by the AD that

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gain at Rs.55,62,066. The Assessee then took up that order in appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed by the CIT (A) by order dated 10th November 2003. Against that order the Assessee filed ITA No.59/Del/2004 before the ITAT. By the order dated 18th August 2004, the appeal of the Assessee was partly allowed

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gain at Rs.55,62,066. The Assessee then took up that order in appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed by the CIT (A) by order dated 10th November 2003. Against that order the Assessee filed ITA No.59/Del/2004 before the ITAT. By the order dated 18th August 2004, the appeal of the Assessee was partly allowed

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') as per\nthe directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP') under\nsection 144C(13) of the Act on following grounds:\n\n1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nAO and the DRP erred in considering the capital gains

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

143 taxmann.com 402 (Cal): In this case also the assessee claimed long term capital gain arising on sale of shares as exempt. The AO made addition on account of unexplained long term capital gain under section

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that long term capital gain/loss of Rs.3,48,35,294/- should be assessed

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "2(14)", "45", "48", "55(2)", "28(via)", "10(38)", "24(b)" ], "issues": "Whether the property converted from stock-in-trade to a capital asset was correctly treated as a capital asset, and if related expenses (stamp duty, interest) are allowable for computing capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

capital gains of Rs.86,28,216/-. While examining the return in the course of the assessment proceedings under Section 143

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

143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act'), is illegal and bad in law.1 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned assessment having been completed on the basis of directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) under section 144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering