ACIT, CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INVEST CORP , DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal\nof the assessee for the AY 2017-18 is partly allowed as indicated\nabove and appeal of the assessee for the AY 2018-19 is dismissed

sections": [ "147", "263", "143(3)", "48", "143(1)", "144B" ], "issues": "Whether the 'option money' received under a joint venture agreement is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, and whether capitalized interest and professional expenses can be deducted for computing capital gains

BIGSTAR HOTELS RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NEW DELHI

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

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "144B", "50CA", "11UA", "11UAA", "56(2)(viib)", "234A", "234B" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer correctly determined the Fair Market Value (FMV) of unquoted shares for capital gains

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT (16) (1) DELHI, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.1862/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Microsoft Corporation (India) P. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacm-5586-C बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 16(1), Central Revenue Building, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ip Estate, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Nageswar Rao, (Through Vc) & Parth, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 04/09/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2022, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri Nageswar Rao, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That, At This Stage He Is Confining His Submissions To Ground No. 1 Of Appeal

gain complete and up- to-date access to all relevant data in regard to an assessee's assessment would available on the 360 degree screen. 36. Learned Standing Counsel draws attention to letter dated 12.12.2024 from the Secretariat of the DRP, specifically the portion where the DRP 35 states that ‘no separate mail had been sent

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

144B of the Act, whereby, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee at an income of ₹133,46,92,080/- after making addition of *44,77,708/- on account of disallowance under Section 24(b) of the Act and also disallowed a sum of ₹40,10,848/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ROHAN AGARWAL, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royacit Vs. Rohan Agarwal Room No. 201, Cgo-1 Kd-42, Kavi Nagar 2Nd Floor, Near Purani Ghaziabad Hapur Chungi, Up – 201001 Ghaziabad, Up- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiupa3170F Appellant .. Respondent

Section 147r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. P a g e | 2 Rohan Agrawal (AY: 2013-14) “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 95,25,646/- made

ANIL DUA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -10, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, thus, allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain on sale of the property and the deduction claimed thereon appearing at pages s 82 to 85 on the paper book filed befo 82 to 85 on the paper book filed before us. The assessee duly filed reply dated 22.02.2020 along with the document along with the documents appearing at pages 88 & 89 being sanction letter dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MEGHA GARG, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Income Tax Officer, Megha Garg, 1707 E-2 Block Civic Centre, 160 Saraswati Vihar Vaishali, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Aecpg7098C Appellant Respondent

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal contesting the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority. 1. On the facts AMD circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SARIKA BINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 5(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasarika Bindal Vs. Ito 20/60, West Punjabi Bagh Ward – 5(4) New Delhi – 110 006 New Delhi Pan No. Aagpb 3973 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gains claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act is fully supportable by the documentary evidences placed before the lower authorities and the Revenue authorities have blindly relied upon the investigation report which primarily narrates general modus operandi. The learned Counsel pointed out that CCL International ltd. is a genuine company which is engaged in large scale

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

144B(8). Further section 1448 details functions of Assessment Unit, Technical unit, Verification Unit and Review Unit (section 1448(3)]. Section 130 facilitates concurrent jurisdiction for faceless assessment officers. Careful consideration of section 1448 would show that there is no provision for Technical Unit to make reference to TPO, as Technical Unit itself is authorised to perform functions of providing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ARCHANA DALMIA, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3998/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), 14Th Floor, E-2 Block Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 11002 बनाम Vs. Archana Dalmia, 3, Sikandra Road, Kalmia House, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aagpd-7794-N Assessee By : S/Shri Kunal Agarwal, Chartered Accountant & Manish Agarwal, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2024, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Sold 23,500 Shares Of Durga Enterprises P. Ltd., During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal To Pyramid Commodities (P) Ltd. (Unrelated Party) For A Total Consideration Of Rs.19,97,50,000/-. The Assessee Suffered Long Term

144B of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority after considering submissions of the assessee and 3 documents on record deleted both the aforesaid additions vide impugned order. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Shri Ashish Tripathi, representing the department vehemently supporting the assessment order prayed for reversing findings

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

144B of the Act wherein addition of Rs.59,18,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained money u/s 69A on protective basis and further addition of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- is made by holding the same as short terms capital gains from sale of properties not disclosed

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

144B of the Act wherein addition of Rs.59,18,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained money u/s 69A on protective basis and further addition of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- is made by holding the same as short terms capital gains from sale of properties not disclosed

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

144B of the Act wherein addition of Rs.59,18,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained money u/s 69A on protective basis and further addition of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- is made by holding the same as short terms capital gains from sale of properties not disclosed

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

144B of the Act wherein addition of Rs.59,18,00,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee by treating the long terms capital gains as unexplained money u/s 69A on protective basis and further addition of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- is made by holding the same as short terms capital gains from sale of properties not disclosed

SIGMA PARADISE,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard and perused the records. The assessee is a partnership firm and is dealing in cultivation and trading of agri-products. The assessee filed its return of income electronically

SH. RAJESH KAKKAR,KARNAL vs. PR. CIT, KARNAL

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sigma Paradise, Vs Dcit, Km-78, Kavi Nagar, Ward 2(2)(1), Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. Pan:Aazfs9643L (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca; & Shri Gagan R. Khandelwal & Shri Jaind Kumar Jaiswal, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard and perused the records. The assessee is a partnership firm and is dealing in cultivation and trading of agri-products. The assessee filed its return of income electronically

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') by disallowing exemption/deduction uls 54 of the Act as claimed at Rs.2.81,58.300 on account of investment made of Rs 2,81,58,300 in new under 5 ACIT v. Prem Sapra A.Y. 2021-22 construction residential flat/apartment in Building Complex known as Lotus 300 in Sector 107, Noida ("Noida Flat"). Such

RAJEEV KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royrajeev Kumar Gupta Vs. Acit, Circle 25(1) 10, Deepali Pitampura, Cr Building New Delhi - 110034 New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aerpg9858F Appellant .. Respondent

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018- 19. P a g e | 2 Rajeev Kumar Gutpa (AY 2018-19) 2 At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee though hearing notices have been sent through registered email id as brought on record before the Tribunal. As there