TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟. They relate to the different assessees but since they are all connected, they are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Substantial questions of law were framed in the case of Kedarnath Gupta and Mani Kakkar in ITA No.713/2008 and 892/2008 respectively. These are as follows

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against a common judgment 2008:DHC:2682-DB ITA No. 895 of 2007 Page 2 of 21 dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed in ITA No. 1850/ Del/2002 and ITA No. 4561/Del/2003 in respect

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) against the impugned order dated 3rd October 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 1280/Del/2002 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 1998-99. Question of law 2. While admitting this appeal on 1st February 2006 the Court framed the following question of law for determination: “Whether

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PNB FINANCE & INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity „the Act‟), the revenue, calling in question the legal substantiality of the order dated 17th December, 2008 in ITA No.3640/Del/2007 pertaining to the assessment year 2003-04 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench „F‟ (for short `the tribunal‟), has sought to raise the following substantial questions

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

Gain (‘STCG’ for short) and making disallowances of the exemption available u/s 54F of the Act by the Revenue Authorities is totally unwarranted and the same has been done without considering valuation report of Government approved valuer and contrary to the CBDT Circular on jewellery. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said disallowance has been made without referring

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S U.K. PAINTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 260A of the Income- tax Act. Ahd ITAT in case of Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd. vs. ACIT 92 TTJ 568 A.Y. 2000-01. The interest or liquidated damages received by the assessee on account of delay in supplying capita! goods or for delay in executing construction work was a capital receipt. Delhi High Court in case

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue for A

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit Vs. M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Central Circle – 10 Ltd., 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi - 48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 244/Del/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4115/Del/2013) (For Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S. U. K. Paints (India) Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd., 19, Dda Central Circle – 10 Commercial Complex, New Delhi Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit Vs. U. K. Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle – 27(1) 19, Dda Commercial New Delhi Complex, Kailash Colony Extn., Zamrudpur, New Delhi-48 Pan No. Aaacu 0057 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 260A of the Income- tax Act. Ahd ITAT in case of Shri Rama Multi Tech Ltd. vs. ACIT 92 TTJ 568 A.Y. 2000-01. The interest or liquidated damages received by the assessee on account of delay in supplying capita! goods or for delay in executing construction work was a capital receipt. Delhi High Court in case

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 :

capital gains determined to be taxable by virtue of the ITAT order was challenged under section 260A of the Act before

Commissioner of Income Tax

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugns order dated 26th October, 2007, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) in the case of Sunaero Limited, the respondent assessee. The appeal arises from the block assessment order for the period 1st April, 1990 to 21st November, 2000, as the respondent assessee was subject

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

gain realized from the sale of capital asset should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in (a) constructing a residential house. If the assessee has invested the money in construction of residential house, merely because the construction was not complete in all respects and it was not in a fit condition

MR RAHUL MISHRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed in limine

260A of the Income Tax Act (Act, for short) impugns order dated 18th January, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) confirming penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) on two accounts:- . (i) Failure to disclose short term capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEERA CHATTERJEE

260A of the Income Tax 2011:DHC:5667-DB ITA No. 341/2003 Page 2 of 15 Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) relates to assessment year 1993- 94 and the respondent is an individual. She had received Rs.1 crore on account of surrender of tenancy rights in property No. 15, Motilal Nehru Marg from M/s Bennet Coleman and Company Limited

CIT vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) was admitted for hearing on 10th January, 2012 and the following substantial question of law was framed:- “Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the jurisdictional pre-conditions for reopening under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied in the present case

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) is: - “Whether the assessee‟s claim that there was a loss and/or it was a capital loss is legally tenable” 2. The order impugned in this case was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) on 19.04.1999, dismissing ITA 2015:DHC:4347-DB ITA 37/2000 Page 2 4486/Del/1998

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) filed by the Revenue impugning order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “ITAT”) 2. Vide order dated 20.10.2009, the following 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 2 of 174 substantial questions of law were framed: “1) Whether the learned ITAT

REPRO AUTO PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 21(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri C. M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshrepro Auto Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 177, W-7 Lane, Sainik Farms, Ward-21(2), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr6510R Assessee By : Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2023

capital gain Rs. 8181507/- 6. This action of the ld AO was upheld by the ld CIT(A). 7. At the outset the moot question is to be decided is as to whether the provision of section 50C of the Act per se could be applied for transfer of lease hold rate possessed by the assessee. This issue