ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

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

Section 6(3) of the IT Act India read with Article 4(3) of the Treaty 26 (II) Judicial Dicta on tests for “control and management of affairs 223-239 situated wholly in India” 27 (III) Case of Dual Residence under the Treaty-Applicability of 235-239 Article 4(3) of Indo Mauritius DTAA Part-B-VI - Rebuttal of objections

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 at the time of amalgamation and subsequent demerger in the present case. Thus, the shares of BIL received by the assessee from KCTBL at the time of tax neutral demerger was also exempt from tax and the said transaction was not considered as ‘transfer’. 33. It is submitted that section 49(1)(e)of the Act specifically provides

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

249 (1st Floor), Preet Vihar, Delhi purchased vide registered sale deed dated 13/10/2017 against sale of old residential house B – 131, sector – 5, Noida on 06/02/2017 for Rs.1,60,00,000/-. The Ld. Counsel invited reference to para 6 of the assessment order are reproduced below: “As evident from above, assessee’s share in the property purchased on 13/10/2017 comes

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain control or as stock-in-trade. However, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom and, in process, certain dividend is also earned which is tax exempt under section 10(34); expenditure attributable to exempt dividend income will have to be apportioned to be disallowed under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain control or as stock-in-trade. However, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom and, in process, certain dividend is also earned which is tax exempt under section 10(34); expenditure attributable to exempt dividend income will have to be apportioned to be disallowed under section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain control or as stock-in-trade. However, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom and, in process, certain dividend is also earned which is tax exempt under section 10(34); expenditure attributable to exempt dividend income will have to be apportioned to be disallowed under section

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain control or as stock-in-trade. However, where shares are held as stock-in-trade, main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom and, in process, certain dividend is also earned which is tax exempt under section 10(34); expenditure attributable to exempt dividend income will have to be apportioned to be disallowed under section

VIKRAM SINGH,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 2(5), NOIDA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmavikram Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chaman Singh, B-6 Ward-2(5), (Basement) Js Arcade, Near Noida Bikanerwala, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 65, Sector-18, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jmlps3035M

capital gain of Rs. 1,31,17,537/- was added to the income of the Assessee. As it was challenged in appeal before the ld CIT(A), the ld First Appellate Authority did not decide the appeal on merits but passed the impugned order by dismissing the appeal for non compliance of mandatory provision of section 249

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MEGHA GARG, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Income Tax Officer, Megha Garg, 1707 E-2 Block Civic Centre, 160 Saraswati Vihar Vaishali, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Aecpg7098C Appellant Respondent

249 (SC), dismissed the SLP filed by revenue filed against the Hon'ble high court where adjudicating the matter on Section 69A, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Share dealings) - High Court by impugned order held that where Assessing Officer disallowed exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) and made additions, alleging

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. VEENA MIRDHA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2008-09

capital gain’ only. There is no change in the status of the case and all the information was already submitted. There is no material information with the Ld. AO to establish escapement of income by the assessee. If the income is reassessed as business income it is merely a case of change of opinion and cited the decision

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

gain in another country the said individual or entity may be obliged by the domestic laws to pay tax on the income locally as well as in the country in which the income was so earned. The result of such a situation is that an individual or entity may become liable to double taxation, one in the resident country

REPRO AUTO PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 21(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshrepro Auto Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 177, W-7 Lane, Sainik Farms, Ward-21(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr6510R Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

Section 50C is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. 4. Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel for the Revenue, states that the Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court

LALITA TREHAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX 3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

249/- the working of which is reproduced as under:- Sl. Particulars Calculation FY in CII for CII Indexed Cost of No which the FY in 2020- acquisition FY payment which 21 2020-2021 (in made payment Rs.) was made 1 Land 7502 (Sq. Yd.) x 1990-91 100 301 16,37,12,395/- measuring Rs.7250 (per Sq. /2001-

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

SHISH PALI,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NOIDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gain of Rs.1,20,68,220/-. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority. As observed by learned first appellate authority, the assessee failed to comply with any of the hearing notices issued by him. Therefore, he proceeded to decide assessee’s appeal ex-parte. While doing so, learned first appellate

SHISH PALI,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NOIDA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gain of Rs.1,20,68,220/-. Against the assessment order so passed, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned first appellate authority. As observed by learned first appellate authority, the assessee failed to comply with any of the hearing notices issued by him. Therefore, he proceeded to decide assessee’s appeal ex-parte. While doing so, learned first appellate

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GLOBUS SPIRITS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 139(1) of the Act declaring taxable income at Rs.11,00,40,460/-. A revised return was filed thereafter by the assessee revising the taxable income at Rs.7,39,31,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer inter alia observed that the assessee has claimed brand promotion expenses of Rs.4,57,61,241/- as revenue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. GLOBUS SPIRITS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 139(1) of the Act declaring taxable income at Rs.11,00,40,460/-. A revised return was filed thereafter by the assessee revising the taxable income at Rs.7,39,31,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing Officer inter alia observed that the assessee has claimed brand promotion expenses of Rs.4,57,61,241/- as revenue