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

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Capital Gains Account, disallowance of entire exemption only because construction was not completed was without any basis." • Sharada Mohan Shetty v. ITO, [2023] 150 taxmann.com 122 (Bangalore- Trib.) "Whether assessee had genuine reason for not constructing building within due date as prescribed by section

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

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record

SIDHARTH CHAUDHARY,KARNAL vs. ITO, WARD-4, KARNAL

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

150/- sq yard i.e. 1806x150 =270900 x 852 = 23,08,070/- 23,08,070/- 100 Capital Gain : 32,67,930/- 4 Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case as narrated above income of the assesses is computed as under Income as per Return 2,85,050/- Add: Capital Gain discussed above 32,67,930/- Total assessed income

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

gain realized from the sale of capital asset should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in (a) constructing a residential house. If the assessee has invested the money in construction of residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition

SAC FINANCE COMANY LTD,HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain income in accordance with section 48 of the Act [Ground 4 of our appeal] DRP directions-refer para 3.5 on page 178 of paper book 1. As per section 144C(10) of the Act the DRP directions are binding in nature and any order passed not in conformity with the directions is bad in law and needs

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains\non transfer of shares. The Tribunal held that recognition of shares at fair\nvalue does not amount to revaluation. The conclusion drawn by the Delhi\nTribunal in this regard are as under:-\n“17. Such a premise of the Assessing Officer cannot be approved for\nthe reason that;\nFirstly, this reserve has not been created on revaluation of\nasset

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, CR BUILDING vs. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, GURGRAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains\non transfer of shares. The Tribunal held that recognition of shares at fair\nvalue does not amount to revaluation. The conclusion drawn by the Delhi\nTribunal in this regard are as under:-\n\n17. Such a premise of the Assessing Officer cannot be approved for\nthe reason that;\nFirstly, this reserve has not been created on revaluation of\nasset

NARENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 7, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh

Capital Gain and the supporting documents that were furnished before the AO. He also pointed to the assessee’s reply dated 05.12.2017 which is placed at Page 25-33 of the paper book wherein assessee had given the details of the parties from whom the shares of K. D. Trendwear Ltd. and Pranav Sports Academy Ltd. were purchased

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

150/- was earned. The appellant emphasized that the Long-term Capital Gain was dully declared in the Income Tax Return filed by him and the tax due on the Long-term Capital Gain has been duly paid which was verified and accepted by the assessing officer in the assessment u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant

PHOOLA RANI CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain is accordingly long term in nature. The very same issue was considered by the hon’ble Indore Bench in the case of Sanjay Kumar Kamath which has held as follows: “8.We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the orders of the authorities below and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncement cited by the ld. Senior