DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

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

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)

Capital gains - Exemption - Assessee was entitled to claim exemption u/s 54F as assessee has put up a new construction in place of old residential building as provisions of section 54F mandate construction of a residential house within period specified however, there was no condition that building plan of residential house should be approved by Municipal Corporation or any other competent

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

RAJENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

capital gain is to be deposited within time prescribed u/s 54(2) of the Act and there is no mandate that the same very amount should be deposited, because there cannot be such legal mandate as there can never be any direct link as such. Secondly, the section itself permits that a property can be acquired well within 12 months

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-08, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usshri Moni Kumar Subba Vs. Acit 118, Subba Farm House, Central Circle – 08, Vill. Sultanpur, Mehrauli New Delhi Gurgaon Road Delhi – 110 030 Pan No. Aasps 1484 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. S. Singhvi, C.A. Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Shri Rajat Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

section 50C of the Act. Consequently, while giving appeal effect, the capital gains computed by the AO was substantially reduced to Rs.87,41,121/-. The action of the CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings was challenged before ITAT both by the assessee as well as revenue. The Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA No.4038/Del/2013 order dated 12th October

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

gains computed as aforesaid. Though the question before AAR was only with regard to rate of tax applicable, the larger issue was certainly if the stock was valued appropriately. Thus to our mind the 16 quoted price of shares Rs.1439 of the JV company was not comparable with the price paid to Honda for acquisition of shares

SHRI SACHINDER MOHAN MEHTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, in short) has been filed by the appellant-assessee against the order dated April 04, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench („Tribunal‟, in short) dismissing the appeal ITA No.839/Del./2013 filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2009- 10. 2. The brief facts

J.K.Kashyap

The appeal is dismissed

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short as „Act‟) 2008:DHC:907-DB [ITA No.391/2007] Page 2 of 16 challenging the impugned order dated 21st July, 2006, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short as „Tribunal‟), Delhi Bench (B) in ITA No.4970/DEL/1999 for the Assessment Year 1996-1997 vide which the Tribunal had reversed

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain of Rs.1,55,67,260 that was already subject to tax in the state of residence, i.e. Singapore and duly allowed by DRP vide order 30.03.2025. Interest Income Interest from Sugam from of 31.03.2016 3 166 investment NCDs Evidenced from Rs.53,76,00,000/ 26AS - Interest from ICC Realty Pvt Ltd Interest Income 166 & from investment NCDs evidenced

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain of Rs.1,55,67,260 that was already subject to tax in the state of residence, i.e. Singapore and duly allowed by DRP vide order 30.03.2025. Interest Income Interest from Sugam from of 31.03.2016 3 166 investment NCDs Evidenced from Rs.53,76,00,000/ 26AS - Interest from ICC Realty Pvt Ltd Interest Income 166 & from investment NCDs evidenced

SANJAY KAUL

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) is directed against the order dated 07.01.2020 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’), Bench-G, New Delhi in ITA No. 1593/Del/2019 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2015-16 whereby the appeal of the Appellant- assessee has been dismissed and consequently the order

SHOBHIT GUPTA ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

260/- for Financial Year 2011-12 (A.Y 2012-13) and a sum of Rs. Rs. 2,86,25,434/- for the Financial Year 2012-13 (Assessment Year 2013-14). 4. The assessment has been reopened for Assessment Year 2012- 13against the assessee under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had earned Long Term Capital Gain

SHOBHIT GUPTA ,DELHI vs. ACIT CETNTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

260/- for Financial Year 2011-12 (A.Y 2012-13) and a sum of Rs. Rs. 2,86,25,434/- for the Financial Year 2012-13 (Assessment Year 2013-14). 4. The assessment has been reopened for Assessment Year 2012- 13against the assessee under section 147 of the Act on the ground that the assessee had earned Long Term Capital Gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V vs. KAPIL NAGPAL

260 A (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 29th January 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 5077/Del/2011 for the Assessment Year („AY‟) 2007-08. Background Facts 2. The background facts are that the Respondent-Assessee filed his return of income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NUWAVE E SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

gain on account of currency fluctuation of INR 1,23,33,934/- by holding the same being not earned from the eligible business. 4. Besides this, AO made the disallowance of INR 3,55,47,260/- by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the assessee has deducted 10% TDS on buy back of shares

NIHO CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 18(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

gain on account of currency fluctuation of INR 1,23,33,934/- by holding the same being not earned from the eligible business. 4. Besides this, AO made the disallowance of INR 3,55,47,260/- by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as the assessee has deducted 10% TDS on buy back of shares