ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUPTAJEE & COMPANY, DELHI

Accordingly, Cross Objection No. 7/Del/2016 and the Appeal in ITA No.\n4761/Del/2015 filed by the Assessee are dismissed

194C", "Section 14A" ], "issues": "Whether the multiplicative factor of '1' applicable to agricultural/residential land should be applied for capital gains

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

M/S. GUPTAJEE & CO.,DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, we\ndismiss the Appeal in ITA No. 5168/Del/2015 filed by the Revenue.\n13. Since, we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) applied a multiplicative factor of '3' under Section 50C for commercial land valuation, making an addition of Rs. 21,13,44,015. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this addition, holding the multiplicative factor of '1' applicable for agricultural/residential property.", "held": "The Tribunal held that as long as the revenue records classify

SHRI MALKIAT SINGH,DELHI vs. CIT(APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhshri Malkiat Singh, Vs.Ito, Ward 45(1), Wz 46/3B, Krishna Puri, New Delhi Gali No. 1, Tilak Nagar, Delhi – 110 018 (Pan:Bsrps2158H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Tarun Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.10.2025 Order

capital gain. Originally notice under section 148A(b) dated 09.02.2024 was issued stating therein that the income had escaped the assessment as per the provisions of Section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of sale, purchase of properties and contractual receipts as under:- - Sale of immovable property Rs. 1,02,45,000/- - Purchase of immovable property

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

gain as well on such project during this year itself. This appears to be in consonance with principle of matching cost and revenue as well. However, in the projected scenario of this case after taking stock of the entire situation, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to conclusively answer the aforesaid questions formulated. It is because

DCIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI vs. PERSONIV CONTACT CENTRES INDIA PVT LTD ( FORMELY KNOWN AS JOHN KEELS BPO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

gainfully refer to the order of ld. 4 ITA No.7295/Del./2019 CIT(A) dated 12.07.2018 for AY 2013-14, reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) in his order, as under : "4.3. The main submission of the appellant was that the payment made is not subject to section 195 as it does not involve in income component arising

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1) & (2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

194C @ 2%. 11. Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee stated that section 40(a)(i) is attracted where tax has not been deducted at soruce or after deduction the same has not been paid as per provisions of the subject section. Considering the above, ld. CIT (A) held that it is not the case of the AO that

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

194C @ 2%. 11. Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee stated that section 40(a)(i) is attracted where tax has not been deducted at soruce or after deduction the same has not been paid as per provisions of the subject section. Considering the above, ld. CIT (A) held that it is not the case of the AO that

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

gain settlement of such contracts is operating in nature and was rightly offered to tax as business income. 14.1 In fact, as a matter of practice, gain/loss on interest rate swap has always been considered by the assessee for the purpose of determination of P a g e | 24 ITA Nos. 2566 to 2573 & 2910 to 2917/Del/2024 Indian Renewable Energy