TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

22. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, that the lease agreement was an exercise in tax -avoidance and, therefore, both the AO and the CIT(A) rightly held that the real transaction was one of sale of the assets constituting transfer and attracting capital gains

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

D E R % 19.04.2012 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we frame the following substantial question of law: ―Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that short terms capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

d) The decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Chittharanjan A. Dasannacharya vs. CIT: [2020] 429 ITR 570 (Kar) wherein the assessee was provided an option to subscribe to the shares of the company at a time where the assessee was an independent consultant of company and there was no relationship of employer and employee between company

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. BHAGWATI COAL MOVERS (P) LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gain is not commercial profit and that where the profit is not capable of being distributed as dividend the deeming provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are not attracted. It was contended that the deeming prevision should be strictly construed. Strong reliance was placed on Section 78(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 which prohibits distribution of dividend

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:

22,871/- = (Rs. 23,38,58,071) (x) Long Term Capital gains as per A.O. = G) - (E) = Rs. 49,40,64,8001- (-) Rs. 11,20,12,407/- = Rs.38,20,52,393/- 12. Thus, the main issue for consideration is adoption of cost of acquisition of shares in computing the capital gains on sale thereof. The assessee has adopted indexed cost

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. These cross appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 29.07.2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. These cross appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 29.07.2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

d) Under a transfer to a revocable or an irrevocable trust, or (e) Under any such transfer as is referred to in clause (iv) [or clause (v)] [or clause (vi)] [or clause (via)] [or clause (viaa)] [or caluse (vica)] or [clause (vicb)] or clause (xiiib) of section 47]; [ (iv) Such assessee being a Hindu undivided family, by the mode referred

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

2,45,000 shares of ‘M/s Pearl Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd’ (‘PRS’) for a consideration of Rs.74,15,54,375/- (a company incorporated in India) held as investment in the books of assessee company to ‘LEI Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd’ (an independent company incorporated in Singapore) and hence have reported Long term capital gain which is exempt from

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

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)

D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessees, Essar Com Ltd. and Essar Communications Ltd., have filed the appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short]dated23.12.2021for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

D’ NEW DELHI SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Nikesh Arora, Vs. DCIT, Dhruva Advisors LLP, 101- International Taxation, 102, Tower 4B, MG Road, HSIIDC Building, Vanijya DLF Corporate Park, Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana Haryana PAN :ATPPA9880Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

D : NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1963/Del/2025\n Assessment Year: 2022-23\n\nEmerging India Focus Funds,\nApex Financial Services\n(Mauritius) Ltd.,\n6th Floor, Two Tribeca Central,\nTrianon, 72261,\nMauritius.\n\nVs\nACIT,\nCircle Int. Tax 1(2)(2),\nDelhi.\n\nPAN: AACCE0596N\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXVIII, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 20.03.2019 arising from the assessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income

HARMANDER SINGH SRAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(22)(d) of the Act, is exempt under section 10(34) of the Act?\n(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nin this peculiar case, the assessee can claim exemption under section\n10(34) of the Act when the company Priya Soparkar 27 itxa 387-16-0 M/s\nSpirax Marshall

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

22,768/- under section 56 (2)(viii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) on account of interest on enhanced compensation which is only based on mere surmises, conjunctures and is against the law, therefore, not tenable. The ld. AR also submitted that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified and correct in rejecting

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub- section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return