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:

section 55(2)(1), cost inflation index was to be applied with effect from 1-4-1981 instead of the year of acquisition by the assessee. 46. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sushil Kumar: 231 Taxman 788 held that where capital asset was property of HUF prior to 1.4.1981 and assessee acquired absolute ownership

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 195 r.w.s. 112(1)(c)(iii) M/s LEI Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd. has withheld tax @10% + SC + EC. It was, however, submitted that as per provisions of Article 13(4) of India – Mauritius treaty the capital gain is not chargeable to tax in India since the I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 shares transferred were purchased in the years 2010 & 2011 i.e. before

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

195 TAXMAN 174 (PUNJ. & HAR.) has ruled that the right to acquire property through "agreement for sale" under section 54 of Transfer of Property Act is an actionable claim which is capable of being ITA Nos. 7256 & 241/Del/2019 22 Shiv Kumar Jatia transferred. Thus, it is a capital asset under section 2(14) as per the provisions of the Income

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

195 TAXMAN 174 (PUNJ. & HAR.) has ruled that the right to acquire property through "agreement for sale" under section 54 of Transfer of Property Act is an actionable claim which is capable of being ITA Nos. 7256 & 241/Del/2019 22 Shiv Kumar Jatia transferred. Thus, it is a capital asset under section 2(14) as per the provisions of the Income

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)

195/- being TDS deducted by EPSL was kept in abeyance on account of AAR proceedings in the second round. In this return it was claimed that the capital gains arising from transfer of shares in VEL was not chargeable to tax in India as per Article 13 (4) of the tax treaty. The case was taken up for scrutiny. Similarly

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

195 of the Act. Ld. DRP rejected the contention of the assessee with respect to interest under section 234A and 234C, whereas for the purpose of interest under section 234B Ld. AO is directed to reconsider the issue with clear-cut finding in his order. Therefore, in nutshell all the objections raised by the assessee were rejected

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

capital gains” in his return of income, for assessment year 2010-11, which was accepted as such by the Revenue vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. In the previous year ending on 31.03.2013, SBPL offered ‘rights shares’ which was subscribed by both, AS and CGP, being existing shareholders, in full, i.e., in the ratio of their existing

SAIF PARTNERS INDIA IV LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION-3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

section 195(2) of the Act from the payers during the relevant AY. In responseto No. 23 and No. 24 3. The Company maintains no bank accounts in India. In response to No. 28 4. The copy of Form 26AS for AY 2017-18 is enclosed as Annexure 5. 5. In response to No. 35 The assessment proceedings under

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

2) (3) of section 14A of the Act were not satisfied. 4.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that suo- motu disallowance of Ra.2,09,65,159/- by the appellant in the return of income under section 14A of the Act was incorrect and not backed by the documentary evidence. 4.3 Without prejudice

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

2) (3) of section 14A of the Act were not satisfied. 4.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that suo- motu disallowance of Ra.2,09,65,159/- by the appellant in the return of income under section 14A of the Act was incorrect and not backed by the documentary evidence. 4.3 Without prejudice

TELENOR (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

195 ITR 877. He had further alternatively contended that even if it is held that the appellant had acquired a capital asset, there can be no computation of capital gain, since the set off i.e. concession provided by the DoT was under a policy decision of Government of India had not been extinguished. The ld. Senior Counsel also provided

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital expenditure which is allowable to an exempt institution only. 11. In the last point the assessee has argued that the order is not erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue because, the AO had taken one of the possible stands. When two views are possible, and the AO has taken one of the possible views

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

capital gains is exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. In support of the claim, the appellant relied on the decision of CIT, Faridabad vs Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR(1). The AO did not accept the objections of the appellant as he said that section 56(2)(viii) of the Act read with section 145A(b) is very clear that

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KULBEER SINGH, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Kulbeer Singh, Ward-26(1), H-432, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Amqps5847P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital asset situate in India : "Provided that such business connection shall not include any business activity carried out through a broker, general commission agent or any other agent having an independent status, if such broker, general commission agent or any other agent having an independent status is acting in the ordinary course of his business : Provided further that where such

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

195 (SC) in support of his contention that in order for a new industrial undertaking to be established, there must be an emergence of a physically separate industrial Unit which may exist on its own as a viable Unit. It was submitted that this condition was fulfilled as Unit Nos.2 & 3 were capable to carry on their activity independent

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LT

195 (SC) in support of his contention that in order for a new industrial undertaking to be established, there must be an emergence of a physically separate industrial Unit which may exist on its own as a viable Unit. It was submitted that this condition was fulfilled as Unit Nos.2 & 3 were capable to carry on their activity independent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

195 (SC) in support of his contention that in order for a new industrial undertaking to be established, there must be an emergence of a physically separate industrial Unit which may exist on its own as a viable Unit. It was submitted that this condition was fulfilled as Unit Nos.2 & 3 were capable to carry on their activity independent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

195 (SC) in support of his contention that in order for a new industrial undertaking to be established, there must be an emergence of a physically separate industrial Unit which may exist on its own as a viable Unit. It was submitted that this condition was fulfilled as Unit Nos.2 & 3 were capable to carry on their activity independent

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. DELHI PRESS PATRA PRAKASHAN LTD

195 (SC) in support of his contention that in order for a new industrial undertaking to be established, there must be an emergence of a physically separate industrial Unit which may exist on its own as a viable Unit. It was submitted that this condition was fulfilled as Unit Nos.2 & 3 were capable to carry on their activity independent