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

capital gains chargeable under section 45; (vii) the profits and gains of any business of insurance carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, computed in accordance with section 44 or any surplus taken to be such profits and gains by virtue of provisions contained in the First Schedule; (viia) the profits and gains

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

capital gains chargeable under section 45; (vii) the profits and gains of any business of insurance carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co-operative society, computed in accordance with section 44 or any surplus taken to be such profits and gains by virtue of provisions contained in the First Schedule; (viia) the profits and gains

SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

xviii) That section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry. In other words, allegation of proper enquiry or inadequate enquiry cannot be a valid basis to invoke section 263 of the Act. (xix) Notice is based on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. (xx) Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act does not change the scope

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

xviii) That section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry. In other words, allegation of proper enquiry or inadequate enquiry cannot be a valid basis to invoke section 263 of the Act. (xix) Notice is based on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. (xx) Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act does not change the scope

ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

xviii) That section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry. In other words, allegation of proper enquiry or inadequate enquiry cannot be a valid basis to invoke section 263 of the Act. (xix) Notice is based on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. (xx) Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act does not change the scope

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

xviii) That section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry. In other words, allegation of proper enquiry or inadequate enquiry cannot be a valid basis to invoke section 263 of the Act. (xix) Notice is based on surmises, conjecture and suspicion. (xx) Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act does not change the scope

PURI OIL MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

capital receipt and hence subject to taxation. 3.5. Finance Act,2015 w.e.f 01/04/2016 with due insertion of Sub clause (xviii) in section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act,1961 providing an inclusive definition of the expression 'Income ' under the taxing law. Relevant portion of Sub-clause (XVIII) is:- "2(24)(xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy

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 :

Capital gains'." (Emphasis supplied). Views of the various Benches of the Tribunal: The Bangalore Bench of the ITAT in the case of Smt. Lakshmamma v. ITO, following the decision rendered by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai (supra), has taken the view that interest received enhanced compensation under section 28 of Land Acquisition

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

xviii The appellant has contended that he has not made any transaction without actual delivery of shares during the financial year under consideration. So, the learned assessing officer erred in law in treating business income only on the basis of short period of holding as short period of holding of shares makes a capital asset as short term capital asset

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

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

2 of section 50C is for the benefit of the Assessee to safeguard its interest and not to apply stamp duty value on a mechanical basis. 9. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Charm Investment Private Limited vs Pr. CIT (ITA No. 3505/DEI/2019) (Dt. 1/05/2020) he submitted that the Tribunal

PURI OIL MILLS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

xviii) in section 2(24} of the. Income Tax Act, 1961 providing an inclusive definition of the expression 'Income' under the taxing law. 5. In view of the above, it is dear that the assesses has claimed excess depreciation amounting to Rs 72,90 000/-on Plant A Machinery as the assesses has received subsidy

PURI OIL MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

xviii) in section 2(24} of the. Income Tax Act, 1961 providing an inclusive definition of the expression 'Income' under the taxing law. 5. In view of the above, it is dear that the assesses has claimed excess depreciation amounting to Rs 72,90 000/-on Plant A Machinery as the assesses has received subsidy

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains derived from business of developing SEZ. Thus, the deduction is only available once the SEZ is developed and it cannot be allowed before the stage of development of SEZ. b. Sale of buildings to the co-developer is neither an activity of development of SEZ nor one of the authorized operations for SEZ notified by the competent authority

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains derived from business of developing SEZ. Thus, the deduction is only available once the SEZ is developed and it cannot be allowed before the stage of development of SEZ. b. Sale of buildings to the co-developer is neither an activity of development of SEZ nor one of the authorized operations for SEZ notified by the competent authority

VEENA SHAH,PANIPAT vs. PR CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

xviii) of clause (24) of Section 2 shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which it is received, if not charged to income-tax in any earlier previous year.]" 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam HUF (supra) has held that interest on excess compensation under section 28 of the Land

JAGPAL,GURUGRAM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

Capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where— such land is situated in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu undivided family

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns