SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

capital Gain earned by the assessee on sale of scrip of M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd during FY2014-15 is genuine and eligible for benefit of section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961? 2. The company M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd, its promoter directors and other entities were investigated by SEBI for market manipulation and fraudulent trading in violation of Prevention

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

254 of the Act allows the Tribunal to entertain a fresh claim raised for the first time before the Tribunal and the power of the Tribunal is not curtailed in the manner as contested by the AO. As discussed above, all the facts relating to the claims made by the assessee that the capital gains of Rs.12

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

254,81,69,490/- (-) ₹ 1,91,91,928/-] from the full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer of shares for the purposes of arriving at chargeable capital gain under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and contention of the appellant is found tenable. 5.4.7 The appellant has furnished following statement in the tabular form showing the details of Long term capital gain of Rs.8,90,66,254

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and contention of the appellant is found tenable. 5.4.7 The appellant has furnished following statement in the tabular form showing the details of Long term capital gain of Rs.8,90,66,254

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

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

section 54F of the Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in impugned order dated 09.08.2024. Hence the present appeal. The case of the assessee is that she sold shares on 20.12.2012 and deposited capital gain in bank account under capital gain scheme and further she started construction of a residential property. For this purpose, she purchased a residential

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

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain on sale of Punjab Khor land claimed it exempt u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. 4.1 That the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly invoked the powers u/s 251 of the Act to enhance the assessment without appreciating the fact that the said section cannot be pressed to substitute the view/decision of the assessing officer. 4.2 That

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gain u/s 45 (2) of the Act. In the circumstances it is submitted that the AO did not appreciate that the decision in the case of Realest Builder and Services Pvt Ltd (307 ITR 202) (SC) & CIT vs. Wood World Governor 312 ITR 254 (SC) fully applied.- PB No.2 - Page 126-129 The AO in adopting cash method

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gain u/s 45 (2) of the Act. In the circumstances it is submitted that the AO did not appreciate that the decision in the case of Realest Builder and Services Pvt Ltd (307 ITR 202) (SC) & CIT vs. Wood World Governor 312 ITR 254 (SC) fully applied.- PB No.2 - Page 126-129 The AO in adopting cash method

HEIDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaheidelberg Cement India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Infinity Circle-2, Towers, Dlf, Cybercity, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm2359J

gains overrides section 71 of the Act.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are challenging the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of depreciation. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing clinker and cement for sale

KETAN ANAND,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 45, DELHI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Ketan Anand Ito- Ward 45, Delhi. 100C Dda Janta Flat Shivaji Vs Enclave, Delhi-110027 [Pan:Arupk6159P] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Vijay Prakash Agarwal, Adv & Sh. Akshay Agarwal, Adv (Through Vc) & Sh. K.K. Panday, Adv Revenue By Sh. Virendra Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 26.08.2025 Date Of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 09.06.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: (1) That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has not justified in not giving the finding

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ARCHANA DALMIA, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3998/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), 14Th Floor, E-2 Block Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 11002 बनाम Vs. Archana Dalmia, 3, Sikandra Road, Kalmia House, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aagpd-7794-N Assessee By : S/Shri Kunal Agarwal, Chartered Accountant & Manish Agarwal, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2024, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Sold 23,500 Shares Of Durga Enterprises P. Ltd., During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal To Pyramid Commodities (P) Ltd. (Unrelated Party) For A Total Consideration Of Rs.19,97,50,000/-. The Assessee Suffered Long Term

section 55(2)(b)(ii), in order to determine cost of acquisition, the assessee was eligible to opt for Cost or FMV of the capital asset, whichever is higher as on 01.04.1981. 3. In order to substantiate the cost of acquisition of 6098 shares, the assessee had relied upon the certificate of chartered accountant dated 28.07.2013 determining the valuation

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 (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub- section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return