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

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 2(19AA) of the Act were also satisfied. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is submitted that, since all the conditions as provided in section 2(1B) and section 2(19AA) of the Act were duly satisfied, therefore, the scheme of amalgamation and demerger in the present case was, without any doubt, tax neutral

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

section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956, it is mandatory for every\ncorporate-assessee to strictly follow the aforesaid accounting standards.\nThe appellant has consistently followed the Accounting Standard 13 and\nvalued the investments at cost and not at lower of cost or net realizable\nvalue. The accounting treatment followed by the assessee has always been\naccepted by the Revenue

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the interest received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 being an accretion to the value, would 8 form part of the compensation and would be exigible to tax under section 45(5) of the I.T. Act, whereas the interest received under section

NDTV WORLDWIDE LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT 18(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmandtv Worldwide Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Okhla Industrial Estate, Circle-18(1), Phase-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccn9121G

capital gain and as such assessee had merely received advance Rs. 85 lakhs which were returned on cancellation of SPA in support of contentions. Ld. Counsel relied judgments:- 1. DCIT vs. G4S IT Services India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3897/Del/2015) 2. Synergy Art Foundation Ltd. Vs. ACIT (8)(2)(2) (ITA No. 767/MUM/2017) 3. ACIT Vs. Anil Kumar Saha

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

197; CIT(A): Pg 107 to 113]\n7. That CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of other\ncredit notes' amounting to Rs.56,80,00,000 made by the assessing officer\nholding the same to be prior period expense.\n7.1 That CIT(A)/AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the\naforesaid

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, CR BUILDING vs. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, GURGRAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

197; CIT(A): Pg 107 to 113]\n\n7. That CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance of other\ncredit notes' amounting to Rs.56,80,00,000 made by the assessing officer\nholding the same to be prior period expense.\n\n7.1 That CIT(A)/AO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

197 of the IT Act had been rejected and subsequently, tax on the interest payable under section 28 of the Act of 1894 has already been deducted at source. Consequently, the challenge to the above communication has become infructuous and hence, the prayer clause came to be modified. However, since the amount paid under section

INDIA PROPERTY (MAURITIUS) COMPANY II,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gains derived from sale of investment acquired after 1st April 2017 and are not applicable on grandfathered investments made before 1st April 2017. He has stressed on the fact that as per the Financial Services Act, 2007 (Mauritius), corporations holding a GBL-I License are required to be administered at all the times by a management company holding Global

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

197-A, Saket, Meerut for a consideration of Rs. 10,50,00,000/- on 21.07.2020 and has claimed exemption of Rs.2,81,58,300/-u/s 54 of the Act on account of investment made in new under construction residential flat/apartment in Building Complex known as Lotus 300 in Sector 107, Noida vide purchase agreement dated 30.07.2020 from her husband

SIEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

capital loss. Refer 72 and 73 of the paper book. 18. We also observed from the order of Ld CIT(A) that he has looked at the transactions differently. He observed that the assessee has transferred assets and liability at the same cost, that means the assets were transferred at zero, therefore, there is no loss or gain

SIEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

capital loss. Refer 72 and 73 of the paper book. 18. We also observed from the order of Ld CIT(A) that he has looked at the transactions differently. He observed that the assessee has transferred assets and liability at the same cost, that means the assets were transferred at zero, therefore, there is no loss or gain

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

capital loss. Refer 72 and 73 of the paper book. 18. We also observed from the order of Ld CIT(A) that he has looked at the transactions differently. He observed that the assessee has transferred assets and liability at the same cost, that means the assets were transferred at zero, therefore, there is no loss or gain

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gains tax on their sales. 18. The basic reason to consider the income from the same in the hand of the appellants/assessee is that during the income-tax search conducted on 02/03/2017 on the appellants/assessee, the revenue came across a calendar events date sheet from the mobile phone of Mr Pradeep Wig as is copied in the assessment orders, showing

ACIT, CIRCLE-50(1), NEW DELHI vs. HARKANWARPAL SINGH LAMBA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

197/- was converted into stock in trade at a value of Rs. 2 crore on 01.04.2011 u/s 45(2) of the Act. The total capital gain on such conversion amounted to Rs. 85,41,803/- which becomes taxable in the year when the property is actually sold/registered. The cost of construction towards the flat in the name of the appellant

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SARASWATI DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain. 17. The assessee contested the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Being convinced with the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the FMV of the shares as on 01.04.1981 as claimed by the assessee. 18. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee has adopted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MR. GUN NIDHI DALMIA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2006-07 Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Mr. Gun Nidhi Dalmia, Tax, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aacpd8352N (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Vs. Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, Circle-31(1), 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahpd8884E (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain. 17. The assessee contested the aforesaid decision of the Assessing Officer before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Being convinced with the submissions of the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the FMV of the shares as on 01.04.1981 as claimed by the assessee. 18. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, the assessee has adopted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GLOBUS SPIRITS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 139(1) of the Act declaring taxable income at Rs.11,00,40,460/-. A revised return was filed thereafter by the assessee revising the taxable income at Rs.7,39,31,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer inter alia observed that the assessee has claimed brand promotion expenses of Rs.4,57,61,241/- as revenue