MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

5: Compensation taxable as long-term capital gains is a capital receipt not liable to tax in the hands of the appellant. The amount of Rs.33.55 crores received as compensation could partake the character of long term capital gains since the compensation so received could at 14 best, be attributed to the right/ entitlement of the appellant to the carry

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5 of 32 cause notice („SCN‟) requiring the Assessee to explain why the lease agreement should not be treated as a transaction in the nature of sale of the movable/depreciable assets and capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5 of 32 cause notice („SCN‟) requiring the Assessee to explain why the lease agreement should not be treated as a transaction in the nature of sale of the movable/depreciable assets and capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

capital Gain earned by the assessee on sale of scrip of M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd during FY2014-15 is genuine and eligible for benefit of section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961? 2. The company M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd, its promoter directors and other entities were investigated by SEBI for market manipulation and fraudulent trading in violation of Prevention

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

D’ NEW DELHI SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Nikesh Arora, Vs. DCIT, Dhruva Advisors LLP, 101- International Taxation, 102, Tower 4B, MG Road, HSIIDC Building, Vanijya DLF Corporate Park, Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana Haryana PAN :ATPPA9880Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra

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)

d. To determine the residential status under section 6(3) of the Act, de facto control is to be considered: 49. The lower authorities, to come to the conclusion that the control and management was not with the board of directors of the Assessee, have relied on clauses of various loan agreements by stating that the change of control clauses

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

5 of 17 Park, New Delhi Less: - Transfer Expenses - Index Cost of Acquisition F.Y. 2000-02 90,00,000 X (497/406) 2001-02 58,00,000 x (497/426) 1,10,17,241 67,66,667 1,88,00,429 Long-term Capital Gain 2,83,99,571 6. It may be seen from the computation that the assessee computed

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

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

D-mat Account of the assessee, b) Copy of ledger account of the assessee maintained in the books of the broker "Shri Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd." evidencing the payment of sale consideration to the bank account of the assessee from the broker. 8. Subsequently, the Id. AO issued show cause notice dated 22.12.2017 wherein he had alleged the assessee

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVIII, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 20.03.2019 arising from the assessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

5 of 15 (ii) Under a gift or will; (iii) (a) By succession, inheritance or devolution, or (b) On any distribution of assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals, or other association of persons, where such dissolution had taken place at any time before the 1st day of April, 1987, (c) On any distribution of assets

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

d) verification by team of inspectors.\n10.\nHowever, Ld. CIT(A) found that the three sale deeds of lands purchased\nby assessee mentioned as land agriculture. He further observed that the land\npurchased by assessee was classified agriculture by DDA in its Master Plan. As\nper RTI Replies, pages 202 & 203 of paperbook Master Plan of DDA has not\nbeing

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)

17. Now we deal with assessee’s appeal wherein assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The appellant during the year claimed an exemption of Rs.2,09,07,085.00 under section 54F of the Act w.r.t purchase of a residential property, against the long term capital gain earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption

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)

17. Now we deal with assessee’s appeal wherein assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The appellant during the year claimed an exemption of Rs.2,09,07,085.00 under section 54F of the Act w.r.t purchase of a residential property, against the long term capital gain earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption

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

D E R\nPER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :\n1. The assessees, Essar Com Ltd. and Essar Communications Ltd., have\nfiled the appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (Appeals)-42, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for\nshort]dated23.12.2021for the Assessment Year 2012-13.\n2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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:

17 ‘transfer’ and therefore, period of holding and cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessee are to be considered after taking into account cost of acquisition and period of holding of the previous owners. b) That the conditions of amalgamation as prescribed under section 2(1B) and conditions of demerger as prescribed under section 2(19AA) were duly