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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

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)

4( 1) of the Indo Mauritius Treaty read with 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

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)

4 acknowledged by the Cinepolis group vide e-mail dated 08.10.2007 (page 163 of the paperbook). 6.1 Considering the aforesaid, CIPL was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 06.11.2007 and as agreed the appellant and Mr. Deepak Marda were appointed as Joint Managing Directors of CIPL. Also, Mr. Deepak Marda was allotted 10,000 equity shares and the remaining

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(4

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

4,100 Original Shares and 15,67,64,689 Rights Shares) was Rs.997,92,44,200and the long term capital gains on sale of SBPL shares amounting to Rs.7,82,92,66,249 was offered to tax under section

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

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

4 of 23 vii) Immediately after handing over the possession of the plot to the appellants the respondent Nos. 2 and 5, namely, Girish Bansal & Gyanendra Bansal are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.20 lakhs deposited in the Registry of this Court. There is no order as to costs. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 5. Consequent upon

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

4 of 23 vii) Immediately after handing over the possession of the plot to the appellants the respondent Nos. 2 and 5, namely, Girish Bansal & Gyanendra Bansal are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.20 lakhs deposited in the Registry of this Court. There is no order as to costs. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.” 5. Consequent upon

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

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

gains in regard to enhancement of compensation received in respect of land that has been acquired, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) There must be a transfer of a capital asset (ii) the compensation or consideration for such transfer has to be enhanced by a court, Tribunal or other authority 42. Two questions that have arisen in the past

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

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

gains in regard to enhancement of compensation received in respect of land that has been acquired, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) There must be a transfer of a capital asset (ii) the compensation or consideration for such transfer has to be enhanced by a court, Tribunal or other authority 42. Two questions that have arisen in the past

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains in regard to enhancement of compensation received in respect of land that has been acquired, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) There must be a transfer of a capital asset (ii) the compensation or consideration for such transfer has to be enhanced by a court, Tribunal or other authority 42. Two questions that have arisen in the past

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains in regard to enhancement of compensation received in respect of land that has been acquired, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) There must be a transfer of a capital asset (ii) the compensation or consideration for such transfer has to be enhanced by a court, Tribunal or other authority 42. Two questions that have arisen in the past

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:

4,94,06,840 shares, the assessee, during the assessment year 2008-09, sold 1,97,62,592 shares of BIL under buy-back scheme, for a total consideration of Rs.49,40,64,800. 20. In the return of income filed for the assessment year 2008-09, the assessee returned long-term capital loss of Rs.23,38,58,071,after