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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

193 of the paper book.\n7.11. However, on perusal of both the orders, it is seen that the same have\nbeen passed u/s 81 of DLR Act and not considering the provisions of section 54B\nof the Act, where the deduction on capital gains

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

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

capital gains not under the head income from\nBusiness.\n36. The next issue is whether the CBDT circular be applied prospectively or\nretrospectively, we observed that this issue was already addressed by the Hon’ble\nCalcutta High Court in the case of Century Plyboards I Ltd (supra), wherein it was\nheld that CBDT Circular 6/2016 dated 29/2/2016 would be applicable

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

193 ITR 321 and 358 ITR 295. Further, saying that there was an error in earlier acceptance of the order/stand of the assessee, therefore revenue‟s stand is changed stating that there is no heroism revenue and the assessee for such a long time. In the present case the only pillar on which changed stand of revenue stands

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

193 ITR 321 and 358 ITR 295. Further, saying that there was an error in earlier acceptance of the order/stand of the assessee, therefore revenue‟s stand is changed stating that there is no heroism revenue and the assessee for such a long time. In the present case the only pillar on which changed stand of revenue stands

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal\nof the assessee for the AY 2017-18 is partly allowed as indicated\nabove and appeal of the assessee for the AY 2018-19 is dismissed

193 ITR 321 and 358 ITR 295.\nFurther, saying that there was an error in earlier\nacceptance of the order/stand of the assessee, therefore\nrevenue`s stand is changed stating that there is no heroism\nin perpetuating an error, there is no quarrel with that\nprinciple but the revenue must point out what is the error\nin the consistently adopted

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal\nof the assessee for the AY 2017-18 is partly allowed as indicated\nabove and appeal of the assessee for the AY 2018-19 is dismissed

193 ITR 321 and 358 ITR 295.\nFurther, saying that there was an error in earlier\nacceptance of the order/stand of the assessee, therefore\nrevenue`s stand is changed stating that there is no heroism\nin perpetuating an error, there is no quarrel with that\nprinciple but the revenue must point out what is the error\nin the consistently adopted

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 656,08,00,802/- from the above transaction as fully exempt as per Article 13(5) of the India- Singapore DTAA. 2.2. The AO in its Final Order, taking into account the direction of the DRP, held that the assessee company is not entitled to the treaty benefits of India-Singapore DTAA as the business

RENU SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

capital gains, the assessee preferred appeal before the the Ld.CIT(A). The CIT(A) however, also declined any wever, also declined any relief on the additions so made by the AO. relief on the additions so made by the AO. 7. Further aggrieved, assessee filed appeal befo assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. e the Tribunal. 8. When the matter

G N INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarg. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji Circle-10(2), Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Dcit, Vs. G. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-4, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Dadhur Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. After disallowing the transfer expenses of Rs 23,75,193/-, the Learned AO re-computed the long-term capital gain

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI vs. G N INTERNATIONAL P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarg. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji Circle-10(2), Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Dcit, Vs. G. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-4, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Dadhur Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025

Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. After disallowing the transfer expenses of Rs 23,75,193/-, the Learned AO re-computed the long-term capital gain

P vs. MULTIPLEX (INDIA) LTD.,MEERUTVS.ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital gains’ and ‘Income from other sources’. 3.3 The order dated 25.03.2013 passed under section 263 of the Act was also challenged, by the appellant/assessee, before the ITAT, who vide order dated 14.08.2015 in ITA No. 2370/Del/2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee. 4 3.4 The appellant/assessee has not challenged the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB

NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain by sale of shares of M/s Unno Industries Ltd. 7. We have heard the partied and perused the material available on record. 8. The assessee has raised the issue of validity of reassessment order we first decide the question as to whether or not such legality of the re-assessment framed could be examined in appellate proceedings challenging

DUSHYANT BHATI,NOIDA vs. PCIT, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

capital gain' on sale of immoveable property have\nbeen examined and accepted during course of reassessment proceedings. Ld.\nPCIT erred in holding that Ld. AO had failed to examine the issue which makes\nthe order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. No agriculture\noperations were carried out on the land prior to the sale of the land

NALINI MAHAJAN,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

gains of business or profession..... These amendments will take effect from Ist April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent years" 19. In view of the above, it is submitted that, since non-compete fee relating to profession was made taxable only w.e.f. A. Y.2017-18, non-compete fee in relation to profession

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

193 ITR 255 (SC) does not apply on all fours since that decision was essentially about the impact of foreign exchange fluctuation on development rebate and not in the context of depreciation or investment allowance in the context of Section 43-A of the Act. (e) The amendment to Section 43-A with effect from 1-4- 2003 is only

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Capital & Financial Services Ltd. vs ITO (2009) 119 ITD 266 have held that there was uncertainty regarding ultimate collection of interest hence assessee was justified in not showing the notional interest income which did not actually materialized during the year under consideration. v) Delhi High Court in CIT vs Metropolitan Financier (P) Ltd. (1981) 5 Taxman 216 have held that

SAHARA INDIA POWER CORPORATION LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for the AY 2005-06 in I

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

gains of the business. For these reasons, we axe of the view that no substantial question of law arises. We, therefore, decline to admit question Nos. 2 and 3." 41. From perusal of all the judgments it has been consistently held rather a settled law that the action of revenue authorities cannot be held justified if they substitute another method