ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

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

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

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, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3) invoked by the AO for rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC to the tune of Rs. 4,67,93,495/- for her Dehradun Unit whereas the assessee had not fulfilled all the conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80IC

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Capital Company Ltd. (‘ KMCC’) to carry out an equity valuation of SBP as of February 28, 2014 (“Valuation Date”) and provide the price per share of SBP, in relation to the proposed acquisition of shares of SBP that CGP does not already own from the Sellers. SBP, through a series of companies in the HoldCo Chain, is an indirect shareholder

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

145 taxmann.com 136 (Ahd ITAT) – AY\n2011-12\nFurther, para 3 of the letter dated 02.05.2016 carves out the situation in which\nthe said Circular would not be applicable. None of the situations mentioned in\n\n35\npara 3 of the aforesaid Circular are applicable in the present facts in as much\nas –\n(i) the assessing officer

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

3,36,25,904 40. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that aforesaid long-term capital gains were computed by the assessee by taking cost to MAL & KCTBL as its cost of acquisition as per section 49(1)(e) of the Act and including the period of holding of MAL & KCTBL in its period of holding while calculating

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

3) abated or not within the meaning of second proviso to sec. 153A of the Act. 2003-04 08.09.2003 Yes 143(3) Did not abate From the aforesaid table, it can be gathered that the assessments in the case of the assessee did not abate consequent upon the search within the meaning of second proviso to section 153A

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital expenditure liable to be disallowed under Section 37 of the Act. 13. That the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law- in making addition of Rs. 15.47.14!/-. being the value of closing stock recorded in the books of accounts of the Assessee, by treating the same as unexplained cash credits under Section

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

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

145 (2) of The Income Tax Act as well as the Accounting Standard AS -9 issued by ICAI on Revenue Recognition. In that particular case, the income was received by the assessee without any uncertainty involved about the quantification or refund of such sum. Further as mentioned in para number 4.4 of the decision where the relevant provisions of that