DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 147 of the income tax act or not. Undoubtedly, the Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax received a letter dated 6/6/2011 from the Deputy Director Of Income Tax, investigation, New Delhi wherein it is stated that there were certain allegations which were forwarded by Shri Yashwant Sinha , M P and the Member Of Parliament and Chairman Standing Committee Of Finance

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 147 of the income tax act or not. Undoubtedly, the Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax received a letter dated 6/6/2011 from the Deputy Director Of Income Tax, investigation, New Delhi wherein it is stated that there were certain allegations which were forwarded by Shri Yashwant Sinha , M P and the Member Of Parliament and Chairman Standing Committee Of Finance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 147 of the income tax act or not. Undoubtedly, the Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax received a letter dated 6/6/2011 from the Deputy Director Of Income Tax, investigation, New Delhi wherein it is stated that there were certain allegations which were forwarded by Shri Yashwant Sinha , M P and the Member Of Parliament and Chairman Standing Committee Of Finance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 147 of the income tax act or not. Undoubtedly, the Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax received a letter dated 6/6/2011 from the Deputy Director Of Income Tax, investigation, New Delhi wherein it is stated that there were certain allegations which were forwarded by Shri Yashwant Sinha , M P and the Member Of Parliament and Chairman Standing Committee Of Finance

M/S. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 14A by the Assessing Officer for calculation of income which does not form part of the total income. The assessee had submitted detailed calculation before the ld. CIT(A), in which he has already disallowed a sum of Rs.1,05,329/- whereas the Assessing Officer has mentioned in his order only Rs.971/-. The ld. CIT(A) after discussing

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

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:

capital gains tax by taking CII for financial year 1981-82. 47. To the similar effect are the following judgements: (a) Arun Shungloo Trust v. CIT: 205 Taxman 456 (Del.) (b) CIT vs. Raman Kumar Suri: 255 CTR 257 (Bombay) (c) CIT vs. Smt. Nita Kamlesh Tanna: 220 Taxman 165 (Mag) (Bombay) (d) CIT v. Gautam Manubhai Amin: 218 Taxman

M/S. R.C. NARULA & SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

221 Gurgaon (Other Assets) Total 5549973 ITA No. 6093/Del/2015 & 1028/Del/2014 4 From the above long term capital gains, the assessee has set off brought forward capital losses of Rs.2,78,385/- showing taxable long term capital gains of Rs.52,71,588/-. As per computation, the assessee applied

ITO, WARD- 28(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHIVANI GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

Capital Gain of Rs.1,60,98,447/- exempt under section 10(38) of the Act on account of trading in shares of M/s. Eins Eductech Ltd., (Previously known as Thyrocare Lab) on BSE. The transactions were STT paid, therefore the gain was claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee had invested Rs.22

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

Capital Gain of Rs.1,60,98,447/- exempt under section 10(38) of the Act on account of trading in shares of M/s. Eins Eductech Ltd., (Previously known as Thyrocare Lab) on BSE. The transactions were STT paid, therefore the gain was claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee had invested Rs.22

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

section is only gains accruing as a result of transfer of the asset and nothing more. In the present case, as stated above, there was no “gain” on transfer/redemption of the shares in so far as the shares were redeemed at par value. Thus, there was no gain which accrued to the assessee as a result of redemption of such

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIVYA SHAKTI TRADING SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 111 (A), since it was its business.” 7. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission in the entire factum of the material placed on record, accepted the assessee’s contention and heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (2010) 188 Taxman 140 (Bom). The relevant finding

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a supplementary synopsis in continuation to the above submissions, which

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a supplementary synopsis in continuation to the above submissions, which

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

221 (Mad) CIT vs. Idhayam Publications Ltd ii) 6 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that since the amount received is for the commercial consideration as such same is outside the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a supplementary synopsis in continuation to the above submissions, which

CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

capital gains stands transferred to the seller for the. purchase of a new flat. As, this fulfills the condition of section 54 (Shakuntala Devi vs. DDIT (2009) - TIOL - 221

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd, Circle-19(1), Room No. 221, G-190, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaaco1081C (Appellant) (Respondent)

221, G-190, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACO1081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Assessee by: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CA Date of Hearing 22/01/2019 Date of pronouncement 28/02/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order

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:-

221 Taxman 72/38 taxmann.com 176 has drawn distinction between holding of an asset and the nature of title over the property and it has been observed that period of holding will determine whether the consideration should be taxed as a short-term capital gains or long-term capital gains. Thus, conversion of leasehold right into freehold by way of improving