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

gain. 20. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC): In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced the relevant part of the order of CIT (Appeals) wherein he observed that in the assessment order the AO referred to the general modus operandi of bogus accommodation entry and thereafter, he has further referred to statement of parties

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

capital gains not under the head income from\nBusiness.\n36. The next issue is whether the CBDT circular be applied prospectively or\nretrospectively, we observed that this issue was already addressed by the Hon’ble\nCalcutta High Court in the case of Century Plyboards I Ltd (supra), wherein it was\nheld that CBDT Circular 6/2016 dated 29/2/2016 would be applicable

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Appeal is disposed of

Section 45(5) stipulates how capital gains has to be charged and is not the computation provision. Reliance is placed on decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Leader Engg. Works,[2004] 269

MIH INDIA (MAURITIUS) LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

section 143C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, in pursuance to AY: 2017-18 the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-2, New Delhi. 2. The basic grievance arising in the appeal relates to taxability of short term capital gain of Rs.4,77,44,375/- arising on sale

PHOOLA RANI CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

269 9. The AO has relied on the following two judgments: i. ITAT No.20/Ahd/2021 Shri Rajesh Suderdas Vaswani v/s DCIT, ITA Ahmedabad Bench ii. ITA No. 448/Ind/2013 Shri Sanjay Kumar Kamath V/s ACIT ITAT Indore Bench 10. The capital gain should be long term in nature, since, the property was held w.e.f 21.11.2009 and assessee has held the property

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. PHOOLA RANI CHADHA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

269 9. The AO has relied on the following two judgments: i. ITAT No.20/Ahd/2021 Shri Rajesh Suderdas Vaswani v/s DCIT, ITA Ahmedabad Bench ii. ITA No. 448/Ind/2013 Shri Sanjay Kumar Kamath V/s ACIT ITAT Indore Bench 10. The capital gain should be long term in nature, since, the property was held w.e.f 21.11.2009 and assessee has held the property

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

section 147), which is a condition precedent for reopening of assessments beyond a period of four years for already assessed assessments. Reliance is placed on following case laws: i) Duli Chand Singhania vs ACIT (P&H HC) reported in 269 ITR 192 (Pages 1 to 10 of PB-IV). ii) WelIntertrade (P) Ltd. vs ITO (Delhi HC) reported

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ARCHANA DALMIA, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3998/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), 14Th Floor, E-2 Block Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 11002 बनाम Vs. Archana Dalmia, 3, Sikandra Road, Kalmia House, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aagpd-7794-N Assessee By : S/Shri Kunal Agarwal, Chartered Accountant & Manish Agarwal, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2024, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Sold 23,500 Shares Of Durga Enterprises P. Ltd., During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal To Pyramid Commodities (P) Ltd. (Unrelated Party) For A Total Consideration Of Rs.19,97,50,000/-. The Assessee Suffered Long Term

section 55(2)(b)(ii), in order to determine cost of acquisition, the assessee was eligible to opt for Cost or FMV of the capital asset, whichever is higher as on 01.04.1981. 3. In order to substantiate the cost of acquisition of 6098 shares, the assessee had relied upon the certificate of chartered accountant dated 28.07.2013 determining the valuation

SRF LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

gain of Rs. 1,12,52,269/-. (iii) Treating TUF subsidiary of Rs.2,64,67,432/-, a capital receipt as revenue receipt. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or vary any of the ground either at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 6. Assessee, thereafter, has raised additional ground which reads as under

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

section 40A(2)(b) could not be invoked by the Assessing Officer. 7.3.8 The other provision leading with charging of less consideration are contained in Chapter-A dealing with General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR). However, the provisions were made applicable from 01.04.2018. Hence, the Assessing Officer could not have disturbed the sale consideration even when the allegation of charging

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

section 40A(2)(b) could not be invoked by the Assessing Officer. 7.3.8 The other provision leading with charging of less consideration are contained in Chapter-A dealing with General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR). However, the provisions were made applicable from 01.04.2018. Hence, the Assessing Officer could not have disturbed the sale consideration even when the allegation of charging

RAMESH CHANDNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, 17. the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 54 of the Act, was taken at Rs. 2,64,81,481/- and the same was considered to be investment in new property. The cost of acquisition was considered to be 99,250/- and taking share consideration payable to assessee at 4,53,75,000/- and reducing the cost Ramesh Chandna 3 of acquisition

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

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

Capital Gain and Loss. He submitted that at this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in the financial statements for financial year 1999-2000 relevant to assessment year 2000-01, the impairment loss was recorded as an exceptional item in the Profit and loss account. However, for income tax purposes, the same was disallowed in the computation of income

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4 , NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA- COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

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

Capital Gain and Loss. He submitted that at this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in the financial statements for financial year 1999-2000 relevant to assessment year 2000-01, the impairment loss was recorded as an exceptional item in the Profit and loss account. However, for income tax purposes, the same was disallowed in the computation of income

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

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

Capital Gain and Loss. He submitted that at this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in the financial statements for financial year 1999-2000 relevant to assessment year 2000-01, the impairment loss was recorded as an exceptional item in the Profit and loss account. However, for income tax purposes, the same was disallowed in the computation of income

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

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

Capital Gain and Loss. He submitted that at this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in the financial statements for financial year 1999-2000 relevant to assessment year 2000-01, the impairment loss was recorded as an exceptional item in the Profit and loss account. However, for income tax purposes, the same was disallowed in the computation of income