COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUBRATA ROY

gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression 'accumulated profits' in sub- clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those sub- clauses

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

2. Ld. AO mentioned in para 5.9.1 at page 14 of the assessment order that assessee failed to submit any maps or plans to substantiate the depleted condition of the original purchased property. In this regard it is submitted that Form A (PB 40) of deed showing that year of construction is 0.7 which means that the purchased property

HEIDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaheidelberg Cement India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Infinity Circle-2, Towers, Dlf, Cybercity, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm2359J

gains overrides section 71 of the Act.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are challenging the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of depreciation. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing clinker and cement for sale

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI vs. KANWAL MOHAN SINGH SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that the assessee sold his residential house for Rs. 5,80,00,000/- and Computed Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’) of Rs. 1,94,89,939/- out of which he claimed deduction of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- under section 54 of the Income

SUBHASH CHAND DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issue in the assessment order would not ipso facto mean that there was none application of mind on the part of the Ld. AO on such issue

SATISH KUMAR DHINGRA ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issue in the assessment order would not ipso facto mean that there was none application of mind on the part of the Ld. AO on such issue

ASHOK KUMAR DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issue in the assessment order would not ipso facto mean that there was none application of mind on the part of the Ld. AO on such issue

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

gains computed as aforesaid. Though the question before AAR was only with regard to rate of tax applicable, the larger issue was certainly if the stock was valued appropriately. Thus to our mind the 16 quoted price of shares Rs.1439 of the JV company was not comparable with the price paid to Honda for acquisition of shares

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

290 Detailed working of disallowance under section 14A of the Act computed in terms of provisions of clause (iii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of the Rules considering only those investment wherefrom dividend of Rs. 15.11 crores has been earned during the year under consideration is tabulated as under: Security Opening Closing Average Balance Balance Balance Shares

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA vs. AJAY GOEL, HARYANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

290 of the PB.\n63. It is further submitted that the action of the Ld AO denying the entire cost of\nacquisition and indexation thereof is beyond imagination, as at the one hand the Ld.\nAO taxing the entire amount of sale consideration of such shares as capital gain\nmeaning thereby that the AO is not disputing the fact that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNIP FRANCE SAS, GURGAON

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

290 9. McDermott International Inc. Vs. DCIT [1994] 49 ITD 590 (Delhi) 10. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. VS. CIT, 376 ITR 306 (SC) 11. Louis Dreyfus Armateures SAS Vs. ADIT, 54 taxmann.com 366 (Delhi) 12. Pride Offshore International LLC Vs. ADIT, 59 taxmann.com 23 (Delhi) 13. ADIT Vs. International Technical Services LLC, 71 taxmann.com 351 (Delhi

USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 29(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 54F for the Long Term Capital Gains accrued on sale of one residential property and fulfilled all conditions laid as per provisions of Income Tax Act 1961.The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, has erred in law and allowed deduction partly u/s. 54F of Income Tax Act'1961 partly towards one residential house constructed on one plot

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 2(18)(B)(c) of the Act and placed reliance on decision of IT AT, Pune bench in the case of Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 968/PN/03). 3.3.4. Annual expenditure in Singapore on operations in that Contracting State is equal to or more than S$200,000:- Assessee submitted the expenditure incurred by it in last

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

290; CIT(A): Pg 91 to 103]\n13. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding upward\nadjustment to the extent of Rs.169.41 crores [as against Rs.173.36 crores\nmade by the AO] towards year-end provisions, while computing book\nprofits, alleging the same to be unascertained liability covered under\nclause (c) of Explanation 1 to section

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

290; CIT(A): Pg 91 to 103]\n\n13. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding upward\nadjustment to the extent of Rs.169.41 crores [as against Rs.173.36 crores\nmade by the AO] towards year-end provisions, while computing book\nprofits, alleging the same to be unascertained liability covered under\nclause (c) of Explanation

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital gains is not to be brought to tax, but the unspent amount/figure is taxed."(emphasis supplied) 5.6 Identical issue has also been decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court while delivering judgment in case of Balraj vs. CIT [2002] 123 Taxman 290 (Delhi). In that case the Assessing Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal rejected

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 in accordance with the provisions of its domestic law.” 4.4.24 The term 'may be taxed' has neither been defined in the Act nor in the treaty. Section 90(3) of the Act provides that – "Any term used but not defined in this Act or in the agreement referred to in sub-section (1) shall, unless the context otherwise requires

SWADESHI POLYTEX LTD,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Swadeshi Polytex Limited Vs. Ito, A-1, Sector-17, Ward-22(4), Kavi Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan: Aalcs4058E (Appellant) (Respondent)

290/- ITA 5592.Del.2018 4 Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Therefore, an addition of Rs 74,83,582/- is being made to Long term capital gains on account of recomputation of the same by determining the Fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 at Rs 38/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated separately

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

gains on such reasonable basis as he may deem fit. Explanation - 43[For purposes of this sub-section, "market value", in relation to any goods or services, means- price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in (i) open market; or arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where (ii) transfer of such goods