DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

16A of the Joint Venture Agreement and had refunded the excess amount to the tune of Rs. 478 crores to CUIH. In the income tax return, the assessee had disclosed the capital gain on sale of its 23% stake in the Joint Venture company wherein the net sale proceeds were taken at Rs. 940 crores being the market value

ACIT, CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INVEST CORP., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

16A of the Joint Venture Agreement and had refunded the excess amount to the tune of Rs. 478 crores to CUIH. In the income tax return, the assessee had disclosed the capital gain on sale of its 23% stake in the Joint Venture company wherein the net sale proceeds were taken at Rs. 940 crores being the market value

NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAQL CIRCLE-15, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

gain on sale of the properties should be assessed under the head profit of the business. 4.5 In view of above finding, the decisions relied upon by the assessee that no section 50C is applicable in case of the business income, are not relevant. 4.6 On the issue of making reference to the DVO, while invoking section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WIG INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 12 provides that every partner has a right to take part in the conduct of the business. Relying on these provisions he deduced that the Partnership firm can carry business to share profits. 4.3 Thereafter, AO relied upon various judgements and inferred that volume of the transaction and the quantum involved goes to show that income earned

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WIG INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 12 provides that every partner has a right to take part in the conduct of the business. Relying on these provisions he deduced that the Partnership firm can carry business to share profits. 4.3 Thereafter, AO relied upon various judgements and inferred that volume of the transaction and the quantum involved goes to show that income earned

UMA DUTT PALIWAL PROP.,PANIPAT vs. ADDL. CIT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Uma Dutt Paliwal, Vs Addl. Cit, Prop. Paliwal Home Furnishing, Karnal. Panipat. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub- sections (6) and (7) of Section 23A, subsection (5) of Section 24, Section 34AA, Section 35 and Section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer

YOGESH JUNEJA,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-29(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 218/Del/2020 (A.Y 2015-16)

16A, clause (i) of sub- (2) section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 23A sub- section (5) of section 24, section 34 A A. section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax, Act, 1967 (27 of 1957) shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply

NARENDRA KUMAR GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvpg8013G Assessee By : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

16A of that Act. Explanation.—In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning, as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth- Tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).” 40. The amended provisions of Section 55A which came into force w.e.f. 01.07.2012 read as under: “55A. With a view to ascertaining the fair market value of a capital asset

M/S. VIRTUAL SOFTWARE & TRAINING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -17(4), M/S. Virtual Software & Training Pvt. Ltd., N-136, Panchsheel New Delhi Park, New Delhi Pan : Aaacv8390F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. L.K. Paonam, Ar; K.R. Shukla, Adv.; & Bhupendra Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 26/03/2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2001-02 Raising Various Grounds. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/09/2015, Which Were Admitted. The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

section 16A of the wealth tax Act, is invalid and liable to be ignored. (b) That in any case, basis of the valuation of the share adopted by the valuation officer is illegal, unsustainable and is liable to be set aside being contrary to the directions of the learned Tribunal as contained in its order dated 20.07.2007 passed

M/S. SHOURIE DUPLICATORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Shourie Duplicators Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pvt. Ltd., 16A, Palam Marg, 8(2), New Delhi F-1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Gir/Pan :Aaacs0541B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate Respondent By Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19/12/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2006-07. In The Impugned Order, Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Sustained The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Hrave Deleted The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.28,46,000/- As There Is No Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income. 2. The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Has Disclosed The Complete Transaction In The Audited

16A, Palam Marg, 8(2), New Delhi F-1, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi GIR/PAN :AAACS0541B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate Respondent by Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 28.06.2016 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19/12/2011 of learned Commissioner of Income

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.,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

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

16A of that Act. Explanation – For the purposes of this section “Valuation Officer” shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

16A of that Act. Explanation – For the purposes of this section “Valuation Officer” shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SHIMLA DEVI, NEW DELHI

In the result, we reverse the order of the learned CIT appeal and restore the order of the learned assessing officer; consequently, ground number 2 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Shimla Devi, Ward-41(3), C-29, New Multan Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Afypd6835R (Appellant) (Respondent)

16A of that Act. 92 [Explanation 1].—For the purposes of this section, “Valuation Officer” shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). 93 [Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “assessable” means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

ARTI DEVI CHAND,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain on sale of transfer of capital asset in a sum of Rs.64,24,710/-. 9. As regards the addition made under section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961, it is an admitted fact that in the Sale Deed valuation of the property for stamp duty purposes have been mentioned at Rs.1,87,76,000/-. However, the property have been

SH. ANIL JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, Circle -5(1), New Delhi Sh. Anil Jain, B- 2/18, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aaipj2615C (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains. In the case of CIT Vs. Gauranginiben S. Shodhan INDL (supra)”, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has given similar finding that “reference to DVO for 6 ascertaining the fair market value of the capital asset as on the date of the sale in the case would be wholly redundant.” 3.5.1 We are bound to follow the ratio laid