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

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

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

BEST CITY REALTORS INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbest City Realtors India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cc – 06, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaccb7687B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 22.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That In Making Addition, The Ld/- Cit(A) Has Erred In Recording Adverse Findings Which Were Not Only Based On Misappreciation Of Evidence But Are Also Based On Non Existent Facts & Such Findings As Recorded Are Factually Incorrect To State That The Assessee Company Has Manipulated The Transactions With C. R. Sons Builders & Developers

capital gain on sale of land located in village Banohar, Hasanpur, Ludhiana. The addition thus confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified and uncalled for. 2. That the Ld/- CIT(A) has further erred both on facts and in law while disposing of the case in completely brushing aside the detailed written submissions. Thus the order

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

2,83,99,571/- on sale of property at S-7 & 8, Green Park, New Delhi. The capital gains were invested in eligible REC bonds and exemption was claimed under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). In addition to the long term capital gains, the assessee also declared short term capital gains

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

143(3) of Income Tax Act. If the amount is held to be taxable in AY 2017-18, then the mode of computation prescribed in section 48 of Income Tax is required to be followed. From full value of consideration, indexed cost of acquisition is required to be deducted. In its computation of capital gains, the appellant has taken full

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

143(3) of Income Tax Act. If the amount is held to be taxable in AY 2017-18, then the mode of computation prescribed in section 48 of Income Tax is required to be followed. From full value of consideration, indexed cost of acquisition is required to be deducted. In its computation of capital gains, the appellant has taken full

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

2) New Delhi. E-2 Block, PAN No. AAZCS2945Q Civic Centre, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 05.01.2024 05.03.2024 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal

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

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

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

gains from mutual fund units are not covered by Article 13(3A) which pertains to shares.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "10(38)", "112A", "2(42A)", "234B", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether capital

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, AY: 2017-18 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Before we proceed to deal with the substantive issues arising in the appeal, it is necessary to observe, a complaint dated 07.04.2023 addressed