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

gain, details tabulated as under: S.No. Particular Amount i) Sales Consideration Received 1,09,00,000 ii) Emaar MGF Land Ltd 24,86,030 Compensation Credit: iii) Total Consideration 1,33,86,030 iv) Less: Less: Indexed Cost -2,15,28,790 v) Long Term Capital Loss 81,42,760 3.4 The Ld AO in the final order dated

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

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

section. However, if the assessee owned more than one residential house other than the new asset on the date of transfer of the original asset, this benefit is not available to him. In the given case, undisputedly, the assessee had sold a capital asset in the form of land on 03/10/2008 and earned long term capital gain

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

gains in case of depreciable assets is not applicable to the present proceedings as this section is applicable in cases where depreciable assets in the block of assets are transferred. Shares do not fall in the block of assets and are not depreciable assets and no depreciation is allowed on them. The shares are only investments and capital assets

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

gains in case of depreciable assets is not applicable to the present proceedings as this section is applicable in cases where depreciable assets in the block of assets are transferred. Shares do not fall in the block of assets and are not depreciable assets and no depreciation is allowed on them. The shares are only investments and capital assets

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

gains in case of depreciable assets is not applicable to the present proceedings as this section is applicable in cases where depreciable assets in the block of assets are transferred. Shares do not fall in the block of assets and are not depreciable assets and no depreciation is allowed on them. The shares are only investments and capital assets

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

gains tax liability in India. This circular was a dear enunciation of the provisions contained in the DTAC, which would have overriding effect over the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by virtue of section 90(1) of the Act. If, in the teeth of ITA Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 And Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 Leapfrog Financial

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

gains tax liability in India. This circular was a dear enunciation of the provisions contained in the DTAC, which would have overriding effect over the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by virtue of section 90(1) of the Act. If, in the teeth of ITA Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 And Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 Leapfrog Financial

YOGESH PATEL,USA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INT TAXATION 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

capital gain of Rs 13,56,87,500/- in respect of property sold during the year by Overlooking the fact that a. The AO did not issue notice u/s. 133(6) or summon u/s. 131 to the confirming parties and the occupant or to the buyer b. The AO wrongly refused to consider additional evidence submitted to the DRP during

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 2(47) of the Act. The AO disallowed the short term capital loss of Rs. 76,12,50,000 claimed by the appellant. In addition to the appellant's submissions, the AR has also submitted the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, who has allowed the short term capital loss claimed by Alona Azalea Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, (AIPL

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain at a sum of Rs. 7,13,63,040/-. Further, learned AO has also not mentioned about the fact of earlier assessment under section 153A of the Act in reasons recorded, this all shows that learned AO has initiated reassessment proceedings on wrong edifice and on total non application of mind: i) CIT vs Rainee Singh (Delhi High

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

237-238 of the PB) 20 B) GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION: The AO had though questioned the genuineness of the transaction by doubting the assessee's business model and the purpose of raising funds/making investments based on general and frivolous reasons, as stated in para 7(b) of the facts, which were rebutted by the assessee during

SRF LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

gain and it cannot be subjected to tax in any manner under any head of income. It is not liable for tax for the assessment year under consideration in terms of sections 2(24), 28, 45 and 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Carbon credits are made available to the assessee on account of saving of energy consumption

VIPIN MALIK (HUF) vs. C.I.T

capital gain was not utilized for the purchase of the flat either one year before the sale of the agricultural land or two years after the sale of the agricultural land in as much as most of the amount had already been paid to the co-operative society before one year of the sale of the agricultural land. The assessee

REVERSE AGE HEALTH SERVICES PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Reverse Age Health Dcit Services Pte Ltd. Vs Circle – 3 (1) (1) 31, Tanglin Road, 03-04, St. International Taxation Regis Residences, New Delhi Singapore- 247912 Pan No.Aaicr9878A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Deepak Chopra, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2023

gains tax liability in India. This circular was a dear enunciation of the provisions contained in the DTAC, which would have overriding effect over the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by virtue of section 90(1) of the Act. If, in the teeth of this clarification, the assessing officers chose to ignore

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. OMAX AUTOS LTD, GURGAON

capital gain on sale of land to HEMA were offered to\ntax in accordance with the provision of section 45 of the Act\n(explained in Ground of Appeal No. 5 infra).\n6.\nThen, during the First Appellate proceedings assessee had furnished\nfollowing additional evidences:\nCopy of Agreement for sale of assets entered into with HEЕМА\nPage 5\nITA No.3055/Del/2025

P vs. MULTIPLEX (INDIA) LTD.,MEERUTVS.ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital gains’ and ‘Income from other sources’. 3.3 The order dated 25.03.2013 passed under section 263 of the Act was also challenged, by the appellant/assessee, before the ITAT, who vide order dated 14.08.2015 in ITA No. 2370/Del/2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee. 4 3.4 The appellant/assessee has not challenged the disallowance of deduction under section 80IB

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

237 Taxman 116(P&H) held that where assessee, a landowner, received interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, said interest was taxable under section 56 as income from other sources in the year of receipt. The primary question for consideration that arises in this case relates to the nature of interest received by the assessee under section

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

237 Taxman 116(P&H) held that where assessee, a landowner, received interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, said interest was taxable under section 56 as income from other sources in the year of receipt. The primary question for consideration that arises in this case relates to the nature of interest received by the assessee under section