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

M/S. R.C. NARULA & SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 2(14)". The assessee's claim is, therefore, rejected. 6(c) The assessee has also made an alternate plea claiming that if one were to assume that agreement to sell by itself equates to a transfer of the asset, then in the present proceeding, there will be no capital gain assessable in A.Y. 2009-10 because the transfer

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

6 of the 10 directors and CUIH shall nominate maximum of 4 directors. The chairman shall be nominated by the annual rotation between the shareholders and shall not have a casting Vote. The Dabur will nominate the chairman in the first year. The Chief Executive Officer of the company is required to be nominated by CUIH out of its four

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

6 of the 10 directors and CUIH shall nominate maximum of 4 directors. The chairman shall be nominated by the annual rotation between the shareholders and shall not have a casting Vote. The Dabur will nominate the chairman in the first year. The Chief Executive Officer of the company is required to be nominated by CUIH out of its four

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

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

SHRI JASTINDER SINGH VEDI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Dcit, Circle-25(1), New Delhi Sh. Jastinder Singh Vedi, 24/55, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi Pan : Aaepv4136E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. R.S. Singhvi & Satyajit Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2011Of Learned Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Lower Authorities Had Erred In Not Appreciating That The Plot Of Land No. A-2/204, Paschim Vihar, Delhi Measuring 167 Sq. Mtrs. Allotted By Dda In Public Auction On 11.3.2002 Was Not Comparable To The First Floor Of House No. 37, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi Especially When The Ground Floor & The Second Floor Of The Said Property Belonged To Others. 2. The Lower Authorities Had Erred In Not Appreciating That The One- Third Share Of The First Floor Of House No. 37, Punjabi Bagh (West) Belonged To The Appellant Whereas Two-Third Share Of The Said Flat Belonged To His Wife & The Long-Term Capital Loss In Respect Of The Two-Third Share From The Sale Of The Said Floor Has Been Accepted By The Department.

gains “full value of the consideration” received/accrued as a result of transfer of the capital asset is required to be considered. However, in case of specific capital asset like land or building, section 50C of the Act has been introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2003. According to which, in case of land or building or both, if the consideration received or accruing

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)

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

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

6) of section 16A, clauses (ha) and (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (3A) and (4) of section 23, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

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

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 I957) shall. with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under subsection (1) of section 16A

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

CIT vs. KHOOBSURAT RESORTS PVT LTD

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 I957) shall. with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under subsection (1) of section 16A

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

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:

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 in ITA No.835/DEL/05

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

6. Ground No. 5, 5.1, 9 and 13 raised by the assessee are challenging the disallowance of provision for expenses treating the same as unascertained liability both under normal provisions of the Act as well as in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 6.1 We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available

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

6. Ground No. 5, 5.1, 9 and 13 raised by the assessee are challenging the disallowance of provision for expenses treating the same as unascertained liability both under normal provisions of the Act as well as in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 6.1 We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available

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

6. Ground No. 5, 5.1, 9 and 13 raised by the assessee are challenging the disallowance of provision for expenses treating the same as unascertained liability both under normal provisions of the Act as well as in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 6.1 We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available