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

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ADIDAS INDIA MARKETING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.648/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 बनाम Dcit Adidas India Marketing P. Ltd. Office No.6, 2Nd Floor, Circle 1(1), Vs. Room No.153A, Sector-B, Pocket No.7, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Plot No.11, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. South West Delhi, New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca5313P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Hence, THE ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE SET-ASIDE ON THIS GROUND ALONE.” 6. Ceylons Pentecostal Mission v. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru (ITA 320/Chny/2021) ITAT Chennai “8. ……………..The proviso further specifies that no such adjustment shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or electronic

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]

143(1) of the Act. 18. Regarding the alternate argument of the Counsel for the assessee that the claim of the assessee is allowable under Section 37 of the Act, we would like to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Jodhpur ITAT, in the case of Tarun Construction Company vs. ITO 157 taxmann.com 727 (Jodhpur – Tribunal) and the relevant

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

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

Capital Gains\" by adopting the stamp duty value instead of the sales consideration for an immovable property sold. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal.", "held": "The Tribunal held that an adjustment under Section 50C, which involves deeming provisions and allows for objections and reference to the DVO, cannot be made under Section 143(1

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

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

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

143 for any previous year; or\n\n(c) such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to time, for\nany previous year, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall\n\n(i) call for such documents or information from the trust or\ninstitution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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)

1) the tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Capital gains' in respect of any profits or gains arising from the sale, exchange, relinquishment or transfer of a capital asset effect after 31st day of March, 1956.... The word 'relinquishment' has been newly inserted. I am inclined to agree with the contention on behalf of the respondents

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

SHANKAR DAYAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-30(7), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain under section 50C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income on 22.08.2019 declaring income of Rs. 17,42,000/-. While processing the return of income filed by the assessee under section 143(1

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

capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act in the return for which reason the assessee’s return was selected for complete scrutiny. 14.2 During assessment proceedings, statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee to produce evidence in support of the return. Again notice under section 142(1

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

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

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

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

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