DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

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

section, as construed, would apply uniformly for all capital assets, i.e., drawing no exception for any particular class or category of the specified assets, as the 'right' shares. No addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) would thus arise in the undisputed facts of the instant case, and the assessee succeeds. Conclusion 4.6 We may finally discuss the issue from

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

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

section, as construed, would apply uniformly for all capital assets, i.e., drawing no exception for any particular class or category of the specified assets, as the 'right' shares. No addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) would thus arise in the undisputed facts of the instant case, and the assessee succeeds. Conclusion 4.6 We may finally discuss the issue from

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

capital gains taxation by the AO\n6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of\nthe existing arrangement\nPara 11 (page 24-27) ECL\nPara 11 (page 23-25) ECOM\n6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom\nBusiness from Onshore to offshore\nPara 12 (page 27-33) ECL\nPara 12 (page 26-31) ECOM\n6.3 Acquisition

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

section 2(14) of the Act as under: “'Capital asset' means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include— any stock-in-trade, consumable stores or raw materials held for the purposes of his business or profession;” The term ‘stock in trade’ has not been defined under

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

section 2(14) of the Act as under: “'Capital asset' means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include— any stock-in-trade, consumable stores or raw materials held for the purposes of his business or profession;” The term ‘stock in trade’ has not been defined under

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provide that capital gains arising on transfer of a long-term capital asset shall not be charged to tax to the extent specified therein, where the amount of capital gain is invested in a residential house. In the case of purchase of a house, the benefits available if the investment

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings also, the assessee filed written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his order. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned income shown

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:

section 2(19AA) of the Act were also satisfied. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is submitted that, since all the conditions as provided in section 2(1B) and section 2(19AA) of the Act were duly satisfied, therefore, the scheme of amalgamation and demerger in the present case was, without any doubt, tax neutral

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

section 2(14) of the Act as under:\n“'Capital asset' means property of any kind held by an assessee,\nwhether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not\ninclude— any stock-in-trade, consumable stores or raw materials held\nfor the purposes of his business or profession;”\nThe term ‘stock in trade’ has not been defined

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

160/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’ based on the following reasons:- (i) Whether Sales turnover/receipts has been correctly offered to tax. (ii) Whether capital gains/loss on sale of property has been correctly shown in the return of income. 3. The AO, thereafter, issued

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PNB FINANCE & INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

Section 18. Claim for deduction can be sustained only when the assessee is in a position to show that any reasonable expenditure had been incurred for the purpose of realising the interest on securities. The amounts claimed by the assessee for deduction are not shown to have been expended for the purpose of realising the interest, and are therefore

ACIT CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHU GARG, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 54F) Short Term Capital Gains 1. Patudi Nabab – 1 – Rs.5,58,475/- 2. Patudi Nabab – 2 – Rs.4,24,000/- Total – Rs.9,82,000/- 6. The Assessing Officer examined each transaction and re- determined the capital gains. 1. Deed No. 72 – Rs.5,93,000/- 7. The details submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer pertaining to the transactions

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

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]" 15. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [2024] 160

M/S. MADURA BIOTECH (P) LTD.,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

160 ITR 67, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "The character of a transaction cannot be determined solely on the application of any abstract test or rule and the cumulative factors affecting the transactions have to be seen. Habitual dealing in a particular item is indicative of the assessee's intention of trading. Merely for taking benefit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

160 shares of M/s TVTB Broadcast Ltd should be taken as Rs 1,89,54,746/- In this regard Ld AR submits that is accordance to provisions of section 49(2C), 49(2D), the cost of acquisition of these shares should be Rs 1,89,54,746/- as against the original cost of acquisition

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

160 shares of M/s TVTB Broadcast Ltd should be taken as Rs 1,89,54,746/- In this regard Ld AR submits that is accordance to provisions of section 49(2C), 49(2D), the cost of acquisition of these shares should be Rs 1,89,54,746/- as against the original cost of 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

ANJU AHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

160/- for the Assessment Year 2017-18 in I.T.A. No.273/Del/2023 2 question. The return filed by the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment to verify ‘Large Deduction / Exemption claimed under different provisions of the Act. The AO passed assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 15.11.2019 on being satisfied with the claim so made. 4. The case records pertaining