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

MUKUL RANI THAKUR,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain (“LTCG”) and made addition of INR 97,37,300/ and made addition of INR 97,37,300/- at estimated sale at estimated sale consideration based on kachchi parchi consideration based on kachchi parchi. The income was accordingly . The income was accordingly, assessed at INR 1,04,36,200/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. As per para

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

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)

Section 6(3) ECL of the Indian Income Tax Act, Article 4(3) of India Para 44-47 (page 173-175) Mauritius Treaty, place of effective management, ECOM circular 1 of 2023 clarifying that in the case of findings of facts by the assessing officer establishing dual residence, place of effective management to be the governing criteria for residence

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, 8 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. no action shall he taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(3) of the Act by the\nAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 53(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred\nto as \"the AO\") for assessment year 2016-17.\n2.\nBrief facts of case are that assessee having income from business and\nprofession, house property, 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

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

Section 143(3)/ 144C(13) of the Act. 2. That the learned AO/ DRP has further erred both in law and on fact in making an addition of Rs. 3,37,202/- representing alleged short term capital gain

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, DELHI vs. ANITA SINGHAL , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2015-2016 The Dcit, Central Circle-8, Smt. Anita Singhal, Room No.333, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara 9-10, Saraswati Kunj, 8, Alipur Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, Vs. Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Delhi – 110 054. Pin 110 055 Pan Aozps8474D (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains on sale of equity/shares/land and building. The assessee had originally filed her return of income on 27.09.2015 for the A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income at Rs.18,38,28,500/-. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3) to the\nfifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of 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