ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 10(38) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 6.6 In the absence of evidence to prove that the Long-Term Capital Gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) is only from transfer of "an equity shares in a company or a unit of an equity-oriented fund" the amount of Rs. 8,90,66,252/- is to be assessed

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 10(38) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 6.6 In the absence of evidence to prove that the Long-Term Capital Gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) is only from transfer of "an equity shares in a company or a unit of an equity-oriented fund" the amount of Rs. 8,90,66,252/- is to be assessed

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 55(2)(1), cost inflation index was to be applied with effect from 1-4-1981 instead of the year of acquisition by the assessee. 46. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sushil Kumar: 231 Taxman 788 held that where capital asset was property of HUF prior to 1.4.1981 and assessee acquired absolute ownership

CPI INDIA I LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INT.TAX. CIRCLE-1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2016-17 . Cpi India Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O- Vasa Chauhan & International Taxation, Associates Off. No. 41, Circle -1(2)1), 3Rd Floor, High Life Premises, Delhi P.M. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai Pan :Aadcc1505G (Appellant) (Respondent)

167/-. On verifying the computation of income, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has computed the capital gain in respect of sale of shares by applying the provisions of first proviso to section

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

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 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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 2(47) of the Act. The AO disallowed the short term capital loss of Rs. 76,12,50,000 claimed by the appellant. In addition to the appellant's submissions, the AR has also submitted the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, who has allowed the short term capital loss claimed by Alona Azalea Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, (AIPL

RAKSHITA PATEL ,DELHI vs. AO WARD 49(2), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Gains of Rs. 1,35,23,142/- from the sale of an immovable property. The assessee has sold the property at a consideration of Rs. 3,48,31,638/- and claimed a deduction of Rs. 2,10.00,375/- u/s 54 of the IT Act, 1961, on account of purchase and construction of a residential property. The assessee has submitted that

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

GENPACT CONSULTING (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS 'HEADSTRONG CONSULTING PTE. LTD.'),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

Gains on transfer of 28/1/2015 jINR/USD) 701,675 shares converted into INRat the SBI 39,792,228, 'Telegraphic Transfer Buying rate as on the 322 date of transfer 16. As mentioned elsewhere, the transfer pricing assessment proceedings were also undertaken simultaneously and on 19.09.2017, TPO sought explanation /details of all international transactions. The details/explanation sought by the TPO were duly

RAHUL MITTAL,DELHI vs. PR, CIT-10, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

gains as is evident from the revised computation of income exhibited at Page 18 of the Paper Book. 17. Considering the facts of the case in totality, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer had made specific enquiries during the assessment proceedings to which specific reply was furnished by the assessee alongwith supporting documentary evidences

AJAI MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2014-15 Ajay Mittal, Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1), F-33, Tara Apartments, New Delhi. Alaknanda, New Delhi-1100 19

capital gain in time, it did not get possession of the property due to the fault of the builder in completing construction and ultimately he got offer of possession from the builder on 01.08.2017 and physical possession was handed over to the assessee on 20.01.2022. Learned authorized representative submitted, investment made by the assessee in construction linked payment plan tantamounts

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, (TDS), GURGAON

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Dcit (Tds), Land Acquisition Officer, Huda Complex, Sector-14, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan :Rtklo0706G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

167 ITR 471 (SC) that assessee’s lower appeal ought to have been admitted since the said delay of 47 days stood duly explained. 4. We now come to merits of the assessee’s sole substantive ground, wherein he has been treated as the assessee in default under section 201(1) read with section

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital gain earned by her to the extent of Rs. 6,68,29,816. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) observed that the assessee has taken exemption on the basis of unregistered agreement to purchase that she has entered with Sh, Prateek Madhan (son of assessee) for 25% share of property E-108, Malcha Marg

PREMRAJ SINGH,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2016-17

section have been fulfilled and impugned addition has been made by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 1,34,48,839/-and not allowing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

167 (Delhi), wherein it was held as under :- Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Profit on sale

RAJESH SALUJA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

gains. These are expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer and the cost of acquisition of assets along with the cost of any improvement interest on capital for purchased property does not increase the cost of acquisition of asset (MLG Enterprises Vs CIT (Karnataka) (HC) 167 ITR 11 ITO Vs Vikram Sadananda Hoskote (ITAT