MDLR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

capital asset and, therefore, no profits or gains is chargeable to tax under section 45 (4). 20. So far as the grounds of appeal No. 1 to 1.4 are concerned wherein the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to enhance the income by Rs.13,04,50,800/-, he submitted that the CIT(A) has no power to enhance

MDLR BUILDERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

capital asset and, therefore, no profits or gains is chargeable to tax under section 45 (4). 20. So far as the grounds of appeal No. 1 to 1.4 are concerned wherein the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to enhance the income by Rs.13,04,50,800/-, he submitted that the CIT(A) has no power to enhance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

gains arising from the transfer of a\ncapital asset\" and the charge of income-tax on the capital\ngains is on income of the previous year in which the\ntransfer took place. The only condition which must be satisfied\nin order to attract the charge to tax under Section 45 is that the\nproperty transferred must be a capital asset

PREM NATH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

gain on sale of property to the tune of Rs.2,93,211/- against which he has claimed deduction under section 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) of equal amount and in addition thereto, assessee declared short term capital loss of Rs.2,79,240/- on sale of mutual funds apart from income from other sources

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

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

SHRI KRISHNA SHRIRAM,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, in as much as the AO during the course of original proceedings failed to make necessary enquiries about the profits earned on sale of shares declared as capital gains and also about the gift

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KRISHNA SHRIRAM, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

Section 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, in as much as the AO during the course of original proceedings failed to make necessary enquiries about the profits earned on sale of shares declared as capital gains and also about the gift

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

TRIPLE ESS INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2015-16

section 2(47) (vi) was to bring within the tax net de facto transfer of any immovable property and expression ‘enabling the enjoyment’ takes colour from the earlier expression ‘transferring’ so that it is clear that any transaction which enables the enjoyment of immovable property must be enjoyment as a purported owner thereof. The idea is to bring within

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

capital assets namely Aravalli Farm Houses, Gopalpur lands, Lohari lands were not actually used for educational/ charitable purposes in the year under appeal and thus, such investment is hit by Section 11(1B) and alternatively by Section 11(3) of the I.T. Act. The assessee-society was holding 24 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon

M/S. SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

capital assets namely Aravalli Farm Houses, Gopalpur lands, Lohari lands were not actually used for educational/ charitable purposes in the year under appeal and thus, such investment is hit by Section 11(1B) and alternatively by Section 11(3) of the I.T. Act. The assessee-society was holding 24 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon

SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

capital gain without considering the benefit available to the assessee under sec. 54 of the Act. The contention of the Learned Senior DR before the ITAT is that the benefit available under sec. 54 of the Act cannot be granted on acquisition of second residential property. Since the authorities below have not decided the issue, we in the interest

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value