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

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

256(1) having been dismissed by the Tribunal the present petition had been filed. 5. We have heard Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, the learned senior standing counsel on behalf of the Revenue. 6. In our view the Tribunal was justified in declining to make a reference on the proposed question to this Court. Admittedly, the assessee had paid

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

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains arising out of sale of different\nshares as fair and transparent by submitting records of purchase bills, sale\nbills, demat statement etc., same not being earned from bogus companies\nwas eligible for exemption under section 10(38).\nPr. CIT 1 v. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (2021) 282 Taxman 301 (SC)\n\n8) Where purchases made by assessee-trader were

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)

1-4: -The Ld. AO has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs.21,66,00,000/- u/s 45 r.w.s. 54F( 4) by denying exemption claimed u/s 54F in respect of long-term capital gains arising on the sale of shares by alleging that the assessee failed to construct a residential house within the prescribed period. 12 The facts

The Commissioner of Income Tax II

Appeal is dismissed

256/-, i.e. much more than the amount of capital gain. Reference was made to Circular No. 471 dated 15th October, 1986 [1986] 162 ITR (Stat.) 41. It was observed that Section 54 of the Act says that assessee could have constructed the house and not that the construction should have necessarily been completed. Noticing that it was not easy

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XV vs. BHARTI MISHRA

1) if read carefully states that the assesseee being an individual or Hindu Undivided Family, who had earned capital gains from transfer of any long-term capital not being a residential house could claim benefit under the said Section provided, any one of the following three conditions were satisfied; (i) the assessee had within a period of one year before

CIT vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, any profit or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year, shall be chargeable to income tax under “Capital gains” and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which transfer took place. Further Section 2(14) defines a capital asset as property

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE OF SOME MORE SUPPORT TO THE STATEMENT: It is submitted that in the statement of third parties i.e. statement of Sh. Dinesh S Gupta

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE OF SOME MORE SUPPORT TO THE STATEMENT: It is submitted that in the statement of third parties i.e. statement of Sh. Dinesh S Gupta

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE OF SOME MORE SUPPORT TO THE STATEMENT: It is submitted that in the statement of third parties i.e. statement of Sh. Dinesh S Gupta

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE OF SOME MORE SUPPORT TO THE STATEMENT: It is submitted that in the statement of third parties i.e. statement of Sh. Dinesh S Gupta

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

gain on account of appreciation in share price both of which are absent in the instant case. From the above, mentioned facts as well as after considering the facts/submission of the assessee, it is found that the above mentioned companies are not doing any business 16 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. activity which justify

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is\nallowed

capital Exp. #\n43,698,289\nIncome from Business/ Profession\n197,479,545\nGross Total Income\n1,875,866,703\nLess: Deduction u/s 801Α\n1,875,866,703\nTotal Income\n5.1\nThe assessee has explained that it has claimed deduction under section\n80-IA of the Act on the basis of the certificate issued by the Auditor in form No.\n10CCB

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Capital Gain and balance amount is deleted All the grounds of appeal relating to this addition are adjudicated accordingly.” 12. As observed above, Ld.CIT(A) has passed his findings on the basis of the details of acquisition made by the assessee of the shares sold during the year in 04 trenches and all the necessary details alongwith evidences are filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Capital Gain and balance amount is deleted All the grounds of appeal relating to this addition are adjudicated accordingly.” 12. As observed above, Ld.CIT(A) has passed his findings on the basis of the details of acquisition made by the assessee of the shares sold during the year in 04 trenches and all the necessary details alongwith evidences are filed

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

256 (Del), while deciding the issue as to whether outsourcing of services to an Indian affiliate results in a PE in India for the foreign company under the provisions of the 21 India-US Tax Treaty, held that for the purposes of existence of fixed place PE under Article 5(1), there must be a fixed place of business

SAPIEN FUNDS LTD,MAURITIUS vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains on derivative transactions were not taxed under the Income Tax Act rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessee is entitled for the benefit of Article 11 of the Indo Mauritius DTAA as the assessee is tax resident of Mauritius. The ld. 4 I.T.A. No. 2890/Del/2022 Counsel submits that for the assessment year 2017-18 the order