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)

capital gains on the shares which were acquired in 2008 and sold in 2011, which is much before 1 April 2017, is unsustainable and bad in law. V. The Assessee is not a resident of India as its control & management is not situated wholly in India: a. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined every year

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961. The said claim of long terms Capital gain of Re 63,01,425/- as exempt income has formed 8 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO the very basis for the selection of the case for scrutiny in CASS. The grounds being interrelated are disposed of together. 5.1.1 It was also noted by the AD that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

Capital Gains on sale of property at Rs.3.9 crores\non 12.03.2020. The invoices and bank details of payments\nand TDS deducted and paid furnished by the appellant has\nnot been examined.\n\nThis ground relates to disallowance of transfer expenses of Rs.\n2340000/- in respect of STCLoss related to property at DLF, Gurgaon.\nAO has mentioned in this connection

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

capital gains on the shares which were\nacquired in 2008 and sold in 2011, which is much before 1 April 2017, is\nunsustainable and bad in law.\nV. The Assessee is not a resident of India as its control &\nmanagement is not situated wholly in India:\na. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined\nevery year

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

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Capital Gain. The Ld. PCIT exercising power conferred under section 263 of the Act, on perusal of the record found that the issue as to whether holding of asset for 36 months or for less than 36 months is not debatable issue and the same is not error apparent on record, thus, invocation of Section 154

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain as a\nreal transaction. The order of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute le well-\nreasoned and we do not find any Infirmity in the same. Accordingly, we\nuphold the same. Grounds raised by assessee are dismissed.\"\n\n17. Further, on the Issue of circumstantial evidence and in the matters related\nto the discharge of 'onus

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

gains of Rs.12,97,20,752/- offered to tax by the assessee in its return of income filed on 29.09.2016 for AY 2016-17 CO No.118/Del/2024 was not taxable in view of the facts as discussed above was already on records of the AO, which has not been contested by the AO. We, therefore, after careful consideration, accept the grounds

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

ANDREY ANDREEV,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-(03), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2002/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Andrey Andreev, Vs Cit(Intl. Taxation)-03, C/O Sushil Budhia Associates, New Delhi Ca, 1103, Level 11, Universal Majestic, Behind Rbk International School, Ghatkopar Mankhurd, Link Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400043 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpa5288P Assessee By : Sh. Y. K. Kapur, Adv. & Sh. Bhushan Kapur, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.07.2016 was passed 2 Andrey Andreev wherein deduction claim u/s 54 of Rs.4,86,22,366/- has been allowed resulting into refund of Rs.76,44,140/- owing to computation of the taxable capital gains as NIL. The computation of capital gains was as under: • Sale cost of the residential cost

SATYAMURTI RAMASUNDAR,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Satyamurti Ramasunder, Acit, D-502, Ivy Complex, Circle 4(1), Vs. Sushant Lok, 1-Blocka, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana). (Pan: Aaapr0741H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 by the learned Assessing Officer to point out the nature of mistake proposed to be rectified. The said notice is placed at page 48 of the paper book. Nature of mistake proposed to be rectified as stated in the said notice is reproduced as under: “Section 54 provides that Long Term Capital Gain

ADITYA SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Aditya Saraf Vs. Ito, Ward-17(4) B-45, Inder Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 012 Pan Awwps1249K (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain has to be assessed as unexplained. The Hon'ble ITAT have held as under:- "14. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT [1995] 214 1TR 801 = 2002-TIOL-885-SC-IT-LB is squarely applicable in this case. Though the assessee has received the amounts

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

RAJESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

section 154 rectification order dated 26.12.2021, is an identical one wherein he seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action making business income addition of Rs.73,23,634/- as upheld in the lower appellate discussion reading as follows: “6. Decision 6.1 In ground No. 1, 2 & 3, the appellant has raised the issue of making addition of Rs.73

RAJESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

section 154 rectification order dated 26.12.2021, is an identical one wherein he seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action making business income addition of Rs.73,23,634/- as upheld in the lower appellate discussion reading as follows: “6. Decision 6.1 In ground No. 1, 2 & 3, the appellant has raised the issue of making addition of Rs.73