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

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

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 269UA. ITA No.-1807/Del/2022 Bhupinder Singh Julka Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains through shares of M/s CCL\nInternational Ltd. had also admitted that they were also Involved in trading\nof these Jamakharchi Companies through which manipulative transactions\nin securities to either artificially raise or lower the market rate of the shares\nare being done.\n\n10. Abhimanyu Soin Vs ACIT 2018-TIOL-733-ITAT-CHD\n\nwhere Hon'ble ITAT

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)

section 54F of the Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in impugned order dated 09.08.2024. Hence the present appeal. The case of the assessee is that she sold shares on 20.12.2012 and deposited capital gain in bank account under capital gain scheme and further she started construction of a residential property. For this purpose, she purchased a residential

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

capital gains not under the head income from\nBusiness.\n36. The next issue is whether the CBDT circular be applied prospectively or\nretrospectively, we observed that this issue was already addressed by the Hon’ble\nCalcutta High Court in the case of Century Plyboards I Ltd (supra), wherein it was\nheld that CBDT Circular 6/2016 dated 29/2/2016 would be applicable

VIPIN JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AADHV8042G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income

RAJENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

capital gain is to be deposited within time prescribed u/s 54(2) of the Act and there is no mandate that the same very amount should be deposited, because there cannot be such legal mandate as there can never be any direct link as such. Secondly, the section itself permits that a property can be acquired well within 12 months

ACIT CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHU GARG, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 54F) Short Term Capital Gains 1. Patudi Nabab – 1 – Rs.5,58,475/- 2. Patudi Nabab – 2 – Rs.4,24,000/- Total – Rs.9,82,000/- 6. The Assessing Officer examined each transaction and re- determined the capital gains. 1. Deed No. 72 – Rs.5,93,000/- 7. The details submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer pertaining to the transactions

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains being capital receipt for transfer of bundle of rights with cost indeterminate, same cannot be taxed under the head “other sources” treating it as return on investment where investment was Rs.64,00,000 only as explained by Supreme Court in D. P. Sandhu case 273 ITR Page 1 Since this compensation in substance is akin to liquidated damages

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains being capital receipt for transfer of bundle of rights with cost indeterminate, same cannot be taxed under the head “other sources” treating it as return on investment where investment was Rs.64,00,000 only as explained by Supreme Court in D. P. Sandhu case 273 ITR Page 1 Since this compensation in substance is akin to liquidated damages

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub section (1) would not be available where 8 an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

201(1A) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and filed an affidavit stating that the entire interest had been paid on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the LA Act and no amount of interest was paid under section 34 of the LA Act and that

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

201(1A) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and filed an affidavit stating that the entire interest had been paid on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the LA Act and no amount of interest was paid under section 34 of the LA Act and that

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

201(1A) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and filed an affidavit stating that the entire interest had been paid on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the LA Act and no amount of interest was paid under section 34 of the LA Act and that

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

capital gains': Accra Investments (P) Ltd. v. ITO: 359 ITR 116 (Bom.) CIT v. Nadatur Holdings and Investment (P) Ltd.: 210 Taxman 597 (Kar.) Gomti Credits (P) Limited vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 1132 (Del.) Pace Industries Ltd.: ITA 1106 / Del / 2004 (Del Trib.) Everplus Securities and Finance Ltd. vs DCIT: 101 ITD 151 (Del.) Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ROHAN AGARWAL, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royacit Vs. Rohan Agarwal Room No. 201, Cgo-1 Kd-42, Kavi Nagar 2Nd Floor, Near Purani Ghaziabad Hapur Chungi, Up – 201001 Ghaziabad, Up- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiupa3170F Appellant .. Respondent

201, CGO-1 KD-42, Kavi Nagar 2nd Floor, Near Purani Ghaziabad Hapur Chungi, UP – 201001 Ghaziabad, UP- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AIUPA3170F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Amit Rai, CA Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 O R D E R PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: The instant

LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT, (TDS), GURGAON

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Dcit (Tds), Land Acquisition Officer, Huda Complex, Sector-14, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan :Rtklo0706G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

201(1)(A) of the Act for not having deducted TDS on land acquisition compensation and interest thereupon, as the case may be, paid to the landowners. 6. The Revenue vehemently contends in the light of the said findings that it was very much incumbent for the assessee to have 2 | P a g e deducted