DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains arising to the assessee on sale\nof the land as per the conditions laid down in the said section. The order in the\ncase of the assessee passed in January, 2006 relates to AY 2006-07and is not for\nthe AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, which are the relevant years for the determination\nof the land

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

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings, which is a jurisdictional ground, which

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings, which is a jurisdictional ground, which

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

Section and was without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed as such.” 5. Relying heavily on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co Ltd versus Commissioner of Income Tax [229 ITR 383], assessee submitted that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment proceedings, which is a jurisdictional ground, which

SUNITA KHEMKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38), is not discharged in the instant case. " 3.2. The Assessing Officer referred to all the aforesaid facts and held that LTCG amounting to Rs. 19,39,357/- was unaccounted income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 19 ITA.No.389/Del./2018 Smt. Sunita Khemka

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

SHRI KRISHNA SHRIRAM,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT vs. Ramaamirtham 306 ITR 239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KRISHNA SHRIRAM, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

260 ITR 417(P & H) 2) CIT vs. Ramaamirtham 306 ITR 239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors

SHIKHA DHAWAN,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 4(2), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Vs Smt. Shikha Dhawan, Ito, C-101, Centre Park, Ward-4(2), Sector-42, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan-Ccbps1718L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gautam Jain & Sh. Peeyush Kamal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2018

capital gain as exempt u/s 10(38), is not discharged in the instant case. " 3.2. The Assessing Officer referred to all the aforesaid facts and held that LTCG amounting to Rs. 19,39,357/- was unaccounted income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer

ACIT CIRCLE-3 (1), NEW DELHI vs. BULLS & BEARS PORTFOLIO LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 14A” 3. First we take up the appeal in assessment year 2005-06. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of stock broking services and was also engaged in investment in shares and stocks. In the return for AY 2005-06 it has declared returned income

TRIUNE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No.2 and 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 14A and Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 is not permissible. our view is also gest support by the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taikisha Engineering Ltd 370 ITR 338 where Hon’ble High Court has held that AO at the first instance must examine the disallowance made

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

capital gain is being worked out as under: Compensation received by the assessee company Rs.55,09,63,271/- ITA No.4710-Del-2010 Against the assets Less: w.d.v. of block of assets Rs. 1,23,60,483/- Rs.53,86,02,788/- 23. The assessee company had originally shown to have sold 50 lakh shares of face value 10 each of its subsidiary company

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIVYA SHAKTI TRADING SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 111 (A), since it was its business.” 7. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission in the entire factum of the material placed on record, accepted the assessee’s contention and heavily relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (2010) 188 Taxman 140 (Bom). The relevant finding