INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

2) of the Act was available as on 31.03.1998; the Assessing Officer did not deviate from his view. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the capital gain arose on 16.06.1997, as on that date, when, the office premises at Mumbai was sold, the „block of assets‟ ceased to exist. Based on this reasoning

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)

2. Issues framed by the CIT(A) Para 6 (page 17-18) ECL Para 6 (page 16) ECOM 3. Analysis of the results of the background Para 7 (page 18-20) ECL Para 7 proceedings leading to capital gains taxation (page 16-19) ECOM 4. Summarising the analysis of the AO Para 8 (page 20-22) ECL Para 8 (page

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2), where the capital gain\narises from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years\nimmediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being\nused by the assessee or a parent of his for agricultural purposes\n(hereinafter referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within\na period

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

164-177) ECL\nPara 43 (page 161-173)\nECOM\n9. Non-applicability of paragraph 4 of Article 13 under\nIndia Mauritius Treaty- Application of Section 6(3)\nof the Indian Income Tax Act, Article 4(3) of India\nMauritius Treaty, place of effective management,\ncircular 1 of 2023 clarifying that in the case of\nfindings of facts by the assessing

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUBRATA ROY

164 ITR 28 (Cal). It was held that the firm did not have adequate resources and its advance to the assessee was not an independent transaction. Reference was made to the balance-sheet of the firm as on March 31, 1992, which showed that the partner's capital was only `40,000/-. The learned Accountant Member concluded that

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

2) New Delhi term capital gain of Rs. 12,30,01,903/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,53,57,250/- and claimed TDS credit of Rs. 150,20,164/- and Advance tax of Rs. 60,000. The AO passed an assessment order

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

2) New Delhi term capital gain of Rs. 12,30,01,903/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,53,57,250/- and claimed TDS credit of Rs. 150,20,164/- and Advance tax of Rs. 60,000. The AO passed an assessment order

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

2) New Delhi term capital gain of Rs. 12,30,01,903/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,53,57,250/- and claimed TDS credit of Rs. 150,20,164/- and Advance tax of Rs. 60,000. The AO passed an assessment order

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against which appellant filed an appeal P a g e | 13 ITA Nos. 1819 to 1821/Del/2025 Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (AYs: 2017-18 to 2019-20) before CIT(A) - 24 on 07.07.2023, which is still pending adjudication. Copy of Form 35 and written submission filed before the Learned Commissioner of Income

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against which appellant filed an appeal P a g e | 13 ITA Nos. 1819 to 1821/Del/2025 Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (AYs: 2017-18 to 2019-20) before CIT(A) - 24 on 07.07.2023, which is still pending adjudication. Copy of Form 35 and written submission filed before the Learned Commissioner of Income

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 112 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against which appellant filed an appeal P a g e | 13 ITA Nos. 1819 to 1821/Del/2025 Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (AYs: 2017-18 to 2019-20) before CIT(A) - 24 on 07.07.2023, which is still pending adjudication. Copy of Form 35 and written submission filed before the Learned Commissioner of Income

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains being capital receipt for transfer of bundle of rights with cost indeterminate, same cannot be taxed under the head “other sources” treating it as return on investment where investment was Rs.64,00,000 only as explained by Supreme Court in D. P. Sandhu case 273 ITR Page 1 Since this compensation in substance is akin to liquidated damages

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains being capital receipt for transfer of bundle of rights with cost indeterminate, same cannot be taxed under the head “other sources” treating it as return on investment where investment was Rs.64,00,000 only as explained by Supreme Court in D. P. Sandhu case 273 ITR Page 1 Since this compensation in substance is akin to liquidated damages

NEETU YADAV,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABFPY2785C Assessee by : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s three appeals

NEETU YADAV,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABFPY2785C Assessee by : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s three appeals

NEETU YADAV,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABFPY2785C Assessee by : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s three appeals

ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA vs. NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE CO. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

164 (INR 2,955 crores) as at 31 March 2013. 3. The Statement is to be read in conjunction with Notes 3, 4 and 5, which form part of the Statement These notes provide the break-up of various heads comprised in the Statement and explain the management rationale for including or excluding certain items, which we have been informed