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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUBRATA ROY

gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression 'accumulated profits' in sub- clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those sub- clauses

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

254 of the Act re- computing the taxable income and allowing the assessee, deduction under Section 80-I of the Act in respect of profits of Unit Nos. 2 & 3. 19. The question whether the profits from Unit Nos.2 & 3 qualify for 2013:DHC:2957-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

254 of the Act re- computing the taxable income and allowing the assessee, deduction under Section 80-I of the Act in respect of profits of Unit Nos. 2 & 3. 19. The question whether the profits from Unit Nos.2 & 3 qualify for 2013:DHC:2955-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

254 of the Act re- computing the taxable income and allowing the assessee, deduction under Section 80-I of the Act in respect of profits of Unit Nos. 2 & 3. 19. The question whether the profits from Unit Nos.2 & 3 qualify for 2013:DHC:2956-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page

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

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)

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in not taking into account all the bills and vouchers in respect of construction of the new property. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in taxing the capital gain

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-

2 years, 4 years and 8 years etc and submitted that such release is subject to adjustment of claims arising on account of unascertained liabilities in the manner prescribed therein. As per the agreement, the assessee is prevented from appropriating the Escrow funds without the prior approval of the other party to the agreement in view of the joint instructions

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

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

2) Act, 2004 comes into force; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that Chapter: Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. [Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section 115JB] Explanation. - For the purposes of this

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

2) Act, 2004 comes into force; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that Chapter: Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. [Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section 115JB] Explanation. - For the purposes of this

MEENA SWARUP,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Capital Gain (“LTCG”) of INR 2,47,91,254/- as bogus made the addition of the same by invoking the provision of section

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