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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

143 (2) was issued on 8/8/2013 by the Asst Commissioner, circle – 2, Noida, who was having PAN jurisdiction of the assessee. Subsequently as per order passed u/s 127 of The Income Tax Act, dated 1 July 2010 the case was transferred to the Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Noida, and the learned AO. 09. During the course

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment for the above assessment year, the short-term capital

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment for the above assessment year, the short-term capital

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment for the above assessment year, the short-term capital

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment for the above assessment year, the short-term capital

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment for the above assessment year, the short-term capital

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment for the above assessment year, the short-term capital

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, 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

2) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance to which the capital gain from conversion of a capital asset to stock in trade arises in the year of conversion and capital gain tax becomes payable in the year in which the converted assets is transferred/sold. Assessee further explained several clauses of the collaboration agreement. Assessee also dealt with

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

2) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance to which the capital gain from conversion of a capital asset to stock in trade arises in the year of conversion and capital gain tax becomes payable in the year in which the converted assets is transferred/sold. Assessee further explained several clauses of the collaboration agreement. Assessee also dealt with

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

2) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 in accordance to which the capital gain from conversion of a capital asset to stock in trade arises in the year of conversion and capital gain tax becomes payable in the year in which the converted assets is transferred/sold. Assessee further explained several clauses of the collaboration agreement. Assessee also dealt with

NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2 (42A) of the act. Therefore, AO treated shares of Scorpio beverages P Ltd as short-term capital asset and computed the short-term capital gain accordingly. Assessee submitted before the assessing officer that she has borrowed loan for making investment in the shares of Scorpio beverages private limited. Interest of INR 37317628/– has been incurred as expenses during

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) Capital Capital 76-89 Gain Gain income Gain 9. He has further submitted that AO has totally ignored the principle of consistency. The revenue itself accepted the income of the assessee from the purchase of shares as capital gain in the A.Y 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11. Ld Counsel has relied the following

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)

143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that compensation of Rs.33,55,12,980 received by the appellant from Thymelicus Holding B.V [shareholder of Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd. ('CIPL')] is taxable

MEENA SWARUP,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

143(2) of the Act dt. 21.09.2015 by ITO, Ward-28(4), Delhi-4. Thereafter, when assessee objected the jurisdiction of the AO who was conducting enquiries, case of assessee was transferred to DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi who based on the information that the assessee has claimed Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”) of INR 2

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143 (3) rws section 148 and section 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act final assessment order on 25th January 2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 245035012588/– as short-term capital gain chargeable to tax in the hands of appellant taxable at the rate of 40%. Subject to chargeability of surcharge and cess as applicable. Further

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

2) of the Act before the ITAT praying for some directions to the AO while computing capital gains as directed in the judgement of the ITAT. In the application, 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 12 of 32 the Assessee contended that the value of the business was determined by M/s. S.S. Kothari

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

2) of the Act before the ITAT praying for some directions to the AO while computing capital gains as directed in the judgement of the ITAT. In the application, 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 12 of 32 the Assessee contended that the value of the business was determined by M/s. S.S. Kothari