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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. Accordingly Rs.74,487/- (3% of sale value i.e. Rs.24,82,890/- is being added under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition of Rs.25,57,377/-] 11. With these remarks, the total income

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

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAQL CIRCLE-15, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income on 27/03/2015 declaring total income of Rs18,98,510/-which included salary from M/s Frontline Business Solutions Private Limited, profit and gains of the business from trading in “Agarbatties”, “Papad” and “badies” and short-term

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gains. Another objection raised before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel about the pendency of international arbitration and therefore requested to keep the proceedings pending was rejected. It was further objected before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel that interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C and 234D

SHRI UDAY SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Uday Sood Vs. The I.T.O 1005, Sector – 15 Ward – 8(2) Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Adzps 5454 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

234D of the Act.” 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly objected to the order of the A.O which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has filed his return of income on 26.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 14,57,120/- wherein capital gain of Rs. 1,45,80,180/- was declared

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

Capital Gains”. 2.1 Without prejudice, that on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in denying benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. 2.2 Without prejudice, on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in denying benefit of concessional rate

M/S. HINDUSTAN VEGETABLE OILS CORP. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

capital gains for the current year as computed by the CIT(A). 16 The provisions of section 234B and 234D

THE GOLDEN STATE CAPITAL PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

capital gains of INR 61,71,789/- and taxing the same in the hands of the Appellant in India. 18. That the AO has grossly erred in disregarding the premium paid for calculating cost of acquisition, in complete contradiction to the DRP Directions, thereby violating the mandate of section 144C(13) of the ITA. 19. That the conclusions

KARNA SINGH MEHTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

gain. The assessee had acquired a right to get a particular flat from the builder and that right of the assessee itself is a capital asset. The word 'held' used in s. 2(14) as well as Explanation to s. 48 clearly depicts that assessee must have some right in the capital asset which is subject to transfer. By making

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 :

234D of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend, or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or before decision of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a farmer. He has furnished his original return of income for A.Y.2019-20

RAJ DUTTA,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

capital gain was shown in the return of income as Rs.37,48,819 instead of Rs.56,07,323/-. 4. The levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D in this case is bad and untenable in law. 5. The above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to one another. 6. The appellant may be allowed to add I withdraw

MADHURITTU PURI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

capital gain is very excessive. 6. That the levy of interest under section 234D of Rs.9,00,769 is illegal

PREMRAJ SINGH,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gain and has further erred in not allowing the exemption of Rs. 1,15,82,887/- claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act, more so when all the conditions laid down under the section have been fulfilled and impugned addition has been made by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

section 4o(a)(i) of the Act on account of non-deduction of taxes at source on reimbursements of expenses made to Associated Enterprises CAEs’). ITA Nos. 2096 & 2495Del/2015 19 Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd. 5.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. DRP erred

M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

section 4o(a)(i) of the Act on account of non-deduction of taxes at source on reimbursements of expenses made to Associated Enterprises CAEs’). ITA Nos. 2096 & 2495Del/2015 19 Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd. 5.2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and Ld. DRP erred

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

gains of business and profession' and not the profit as computed by the Appellant. 16. The Ld. AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in not allowing set-off of business loss of Rs. 5,04,30,717 pertaining to units other than those claiming deduction under section 1OA of the Act despite

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

gains of business and profession' and not the profit as computed by the Appellant. 16. The Ld. AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in not allowing set-off of business loss of Rs. 5,04,30,717 pertaining to units other than those claiming deduction under section 1OA of the Act despite

LUSTRE MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Circle 4(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2457D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-5, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal.

Gain / Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. 5. It is reiterated that the above principles have been formulated with t he sale objective of reducing litigation and maintaining consistency in approach on the issue of treatment of income derived from transfer of shares and securities. All the relevant provisions of the Act shall continue to apply