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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return of income. The learned authorised representative stating the above facts submitted that the reasons recorded are factually incorrect and are having inherent contradictions and lack of application of mind by the learned assessing officer. He further submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return of income. The learned authorised representative stating the above facts submitted that the reasons recorded are factually incorrect and are having inherent contradictions and lack of application of mind by the learned assessing officer. He further submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return of income. The learned authorised representative stating the above facts submitted that the reasons recorded are factually incorrect and are having inherent contradictions and lack of application of mind by the learned assessing officer. He further submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return of income. The learned authorised representative stating the above facts submitted that the reasons recorded are factually incorrect and are having inherent contradictions and lack of application of mind by the learned assessing officer. He further submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return of income. The learned authorised representative stating the above facts submitted that the reasons recorded are factually incorrect and are having inherent contradictions and lack of application of mind by the learned assessing officer. He further submitted that

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return of income. The learned authorised representative stating the above facts submitted that the reasons recorded are factually incorrect and are having inherent contradictions and lack of application of mind by the learned assessing officer. He further submitted that

GYANENDRA BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 ITR 266 (Bom) , it was held that the sum received by the Assessees was neither a business income nor a salary, nor an income ITA Nos. 136 & 138/2004 Page 8 of 23 attracting capital gains. Therefore, the AO justified in bringing the amount to tax under Section 10 (3

GIRISH BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

249 ITR 266 (Bom) , it was held that the sum received by the Assessees was neither a business income nor a salary, nor an income ITA Nos. 136 & 138/2004 Page 8 of 23 attracting capital gains. Therefore, the AO justified in bringing the amount to tax under Section 10 (3

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

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

249 ITR 266 elucidated the principle relating to taxation of income in the following words: "...... It is well-settled that all receipts are not taxable under the Income-tax Act. Section 2(24) defines "income". It is no doubt an inclusive definition. However, a capital receipt 'is not income under section 2(24) unless it is chargeable

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital of that concern, the exemption under section\n11 or section 12 shall not be denied in relation to any income other than the income\narising to the trust or the institution from such investment, by reason only that the\nfunds of the trust or the institution have been invested in a concern in which such\nperson has a substantial

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

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

249 was offered to tax under section 45 read with section 48 of the Act. 20. After narrating the entire facts and background of the case as above, Mr. Vohra submitted that the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) cannot substitute the actual sale consideration with notional consideration or fair market value for computing the capital gains

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

capital gains. He further stressed that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India [2015] 235 Taxman 446/63 taxmann.com 243, judgment dated 28.07.2015 had adjudicated the issue relating to whether the fees charged is legal or illegal and had not touched upon the mechanism to levy the fees. In this regard, the learned Authorized

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

capital gains. He further stressed that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India [2015] 235 Taxman 446/63 taxmann.com 243, judgment dated 28.07.2015 had adjudicated the issue relating to whether the fees charged is legal or illegal and had not touched upon the mechanism to levy the fees. In this regard, the learned Authorized

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain, or loss accrues to the assessee. Further the Page 9 of 29 argument of the assessee that appellant recorded the diminution in the value of investment because of the RBI guidelines dated 9/11/2000 which mandated the financial institutions to not to record any income on securities if the principal or interest is in arrears and required to classify

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain, or loss accrues to the assessee. Further the Page 9 of 29 argument of the assessee that appellant recorded the diminution in the value of investment because of the RBI guidelines dated 9/11/2000 which mandated the financial institutions to not to record any income on securities if the principal or interest is in arrears and required to classify

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:

3. In para 13 of the order the CIT(A) also rejected the findings of the AO that the transfer of assets and the incident of capital gain arose at two points earlier i.e. at the time of amalgamation and at the time of demerger. The AO's findings were on the basis of facts that the requirement of Sec.2

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns