DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capitalize the entire cost of spares in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Accounting Standards (AS) 2 and (AS) 10. 16.6 It is not disputed that the assessee is maintaining the accounts based on a mercantile system. Under sub- section (1) of section 145 of the Act the assessee's income which is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

Capital gains'." (Emphasis supplied). Views of the various Benches of the Tribunal: The Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma v. ITO, following the decision rendered by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai (supra), has taken the view that interest received enhanced compensation under section 28 of Land Acquisition

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

capital gains is exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. In support of the claim, the appellant relied on the decision of CIT, Faridabad vs Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR(1). The AO did not accept the objections of the appellant as he said that section 56(2)(viii) of the Act read with section 145A(b) is very clear that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD vs. PRAHLAD, PALWAL

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

capital expenditure of Rs.5,05,460/- is being granted to the assessee @ 5% as the car was purchased in the month of February, 2020. With respect to non-GST purchases of Rs. 3,70,29,969/- for purchasing items like sand, mud, stone, crush, small stones etc., the assessee has submitted copies of bank statements reflecting payments, sample invoices

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Capital Gains on the date of conversion which would be assessed under section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year of sale/transfer. Seventh. Further there were no misrepresentation of facts by the appellant as no discrepancy of any sort nor any incriminating evidence was found which pointed out to escapement of Income for any assessment years

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Capital Gains on the date of conversion which would be assessed under section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year of sale/transfer. Seventh. Further there were no misrepresentation of facts by the appellant as no discrepancy of any sort nor any incriminating evidence was found which pointed out to escapement of Income for any assessment years

JAGPAL,GURUGRAM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains under section 45(5)(b) of the Act only. In this case, the hon’ble Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with the issue of taxability of interest received under section 28 of LAA as ‘income from other sources’ especially after the amended provision of section 56(2)(viii) and 145B

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

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

VEENA SHAH,PANIPAT vs. PR CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

2) of section 56of the Act, there would be deduction of fifty per cent. Section 145 of the Actprovides for accounting method. Clause (b) of section 145A of the Actprovides that interest received on compensation or enhanced compensation shall be deemed to be income for the year in which it is received. 8. Sections 28 and 34 of the Land

BHIM SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains under section 45(5)(b) of the Act only. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with the issue of taxability of interest received under section 28 of LAA as ‘income from other sources’ especially after the amended provision of section 56(2)(viii) and 145B

BIR SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains under section 45(5)(b) of the Act only. In this case, the hon’ble Supreme Court had no occasion to deal with the issue of taxability of interest received under section 28 of LAA as ‘income from other sources’ especially after the amended provision of section 56(2)(viii) and 145B

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, KARNAL vs. RELIABLE REALTECH PVT LTD, BHIWANI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle, Vs. Reliable Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Ayakar Bhawan, C/O Nk Jain Adv. Sec-12, Karnal, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani Haryana Pin 132001 Haryana Pin 127021 Pan Aadcr4203L (Appellant) (Respondent)

2,28,68,559/- as against the declared income of Rs. 57,75,159/-. .... 16. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the ITAT has in the impugned order dated 17th February, 2015 in ITA No. 4316/Del/2010 upheld the finding rendered by the CIT (A) that the Assessee was only a developer and not a contractor. This