THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

capital gain was available. When this issue came up before the CIT (A), the CIT (A) not only rejected the claim under section 10(38) but also considered and elaborately discussed how and why the assessee was not eligible for deductions already allowed by the Assessing Officer in respect of 'interest on tax free bonds' amounting

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

capital gain was available. When this issue came up before the CIT (A), the CIT (A) not only rejected the claim under section 10(38) but also considered and elaborately discussed how and why the assessee was not eligible for deductions already allowed by the Assessing Officer in respect of 'interest on tax free bonds' amounting

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 2(47) of the Act. The AO disallowed the short term capital loss of Rs. 76,12,50,000 claimed by the appellant. In addition to the appellant's submissions, the AR has also submitted the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, who has allowed the short term capital loss claimed by Alona Azalea Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, (AIPL

MANJEET SINGH BALI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Manjeet Singh Bali, Vs Ito, C/O-Ravi Kumar & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), House No.64, Sector-9, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad-201001. Pan-Acepb5753B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Gagan Kumar & Vivek Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2022

Capital Gain (“LTCG”) at Rs.11,74,995/-. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) after recording of reasons placed on record and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response

RAJESH SALUJA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

270/- which was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued along with the questionnaires. The Assessment Order came to be passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by reducing a sum of Rs. 1,16,43,521/- from cost of acquisition of the property claimed by the assessee. As a result

HTL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar

section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961. In case you have any objection to the proposed action, you may file your objections before me at 11.00 A.M. on 22-03-2019. If no objections are received by the aforesaid date, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this matter and order

NEETU YADAV,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

270 (SC) ; (ii) UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 20I7 dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. The Ld. AR cited decisions wherein assumption of jurisdiction under section

NEETU YADAV,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

270 (SC) ; (ii) UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 20I7 dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. The Ld. AR cited decisions wherein assumption of jurisdiction under section

NEETU YADAV,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, GURGAON

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

270 (SC) ; (ii) UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 20I7 dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. The Ld. AR cited decisions wherein assumption of jurisdiction under section

ITO, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. CHAMAN, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

capital gain. In the case of Hari Singh (supra) while dealing with the similar question under identical set of facts while setting aside the matter to the file of the AO to examine the facts of the case and to apply the law as contained in the Income-tax Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically directs that in case

HARI SINGH,PALWAL vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

270 (SC) ; (ii) UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91\ntaxmann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muktanangiri\nMaheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 dated\n10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs.\nGhanshyam (HUF) (2009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has\nbeen affirmed. The Ld. AR cited decisions wherein\nassumption of jurisdiction under section

VEENA SHAH,PANIPAT vs. PR CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

270. 5. The Ld. DR, placing reliance on the decisions in the cases of Mahender Pal Narang (P & H), SLP dismissal in the case of Mahender 7 Pal Narang, Puneet Singh (2019) 110 Taxmann.com 116 and Inderjit Singh Sodhi (HUF) [2024] 161 taxmann.com 301 (Delhi), prayed for dismissal of the appeal. The Ld. DR submitted that there were various decisions

ITO, SONEPAT vs. SH. DHARAMPAL, SONEPAT

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs Dharampal, Ward-1, S/O Shri Gugan Ram, Sonepat. Vill. Revali, Sonepat. Pan: Azupd1215B Co No.151/Del/2018 (Ita No.2569/Del/2015) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dharampal, Vs. Ito, S/O Shri Gugan Ram, Ward-1, Vill. Revali, Sonepat. Sonepat. Pan: Azupd1215B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 16.02.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak (Hereinafter Co No.151/Del/2018 Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.215/2013-14 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 25.03.2013 Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-3, Sonepat (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection.

gains and the ld.CIT(A) has erred in holding that the actual transfer was affected in AY 2010-11. So, the assessee cannot be taxed in the year under consideration. 6. In this context, the ld. AR has brought on record certain facts submitting that there was a dispute between the parties which was settled by way of a compromise

RAMAVTAR,REWARI vs. ITO, REWARI, REWARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 140/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ramavtar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Anu Jain & Company, Ward-1(3), 272-R, First Floor, Near Palika Near Hindu High School, Complex, Model Town, Rewari, Model Town, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apdpa0001R Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083470019(1) Dated 09.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

270 (SC) ; (ii) UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 20I7 dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. The Ld. AR cited decisions wherein assumption of jurisdiction under section

SATENDER KUMAR,SARITA VIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 229/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Satender Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 56, Ali Village, Sarita Vihar, Ward-28(1), New Delhi-110076 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afxpk4995C Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1082434098(1) Dated 10.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

270 (SC) ; (ii) UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 20I7 dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. The Ld. AR cited decisions wherein assumption of jurisdiction under section

BRAHAM DUTT VASHIST,GURGAON vs. ITO-WARD -1(3),GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 170/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Braham Dutt Vashist, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca M. R. Sahu, Ward-1(3), H. No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector-10A, Gurgaon-122001 Near G. D. Goenka Public School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Affpv0127D Assessee By: Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083989454(1) Dated 23.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

270 (SC) ; (ii) UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 20I7 dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. The Ld. AR cited decisions wherein assumption of jurisdiction under section

MAHENDER MALIK,HISAR vs. ITO,WARD -(1), HISAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Mahender Malik, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 388, Satroad Khurad, Near Ward-1, Adarsh High School, Hisar Hisar Pan: Bitpm5341N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Karishma Rathore, Adv. Sh. Mayank Patawari, Adv. Department By Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069269047(1), Dated 30.09.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 154 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In The Assessee’S Condonation Averments, Delay Of 3 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned In Light Of Collector, Land & Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 Itr 471 (Sc). 3. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 4. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only.

270 (SC) ; (ii) UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 20I7 dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. The Ld. AR cited decisions wherein assumption of jurisdiction under section

KRISHAN KUMAR YADAV,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD-2, REWARI, REWARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8417/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Krishan Kumar Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Bank Of Baroda, Circular Road, Ward-2, Rewari, Haryana-123401 Rewari, Haryana-123401 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpy1644F Assessee By: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. & Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1081822094(1) Dated 16.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

270 (SC) ; (ii) UOI vs. Hari Singh (2018) 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC); and (iii) ITO, TDS v. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 20I7 dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) (2009) 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. The Ld. AR cited decisions wherein assumption of jurisdiction under section