SARVA CAPITAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

gains of Rs. 163,26,34,468 on sale of shares of Suryoday Small Finance Bank, Disha Medical Services, Rural Shores Business Services, Veritas under section 112 of the Act, as against under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. b. Taxing interest income of Rs.30,00,000/- as per provisions of the Act as against under Article

SAC FINANCE COMANY LTD,HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gains income in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Act and c) allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in rejecting the financials of Wormhole for the period ended March 31, 2018, suo-moto submitted

BHS INDIA HOLDINGS, INC.,NEW JERSEY, USA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1)(2), DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the stay application which is tagged along is dismissed being infructous

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gains. 20. The AO has concluded that as the assessee had failed to establish the acquisition, possession and transfer of capital asset shares, the consideration received is treated as income from other sources. In this context, the assessee has filed before us the copy of returns filed under the Companies Act, 1956, made available at Page

THE GOLDEN STATE CAPITAL PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

capital gains of INR 61,71,789/- and taxing the same in the hands of the Appellant in India. 18. That the AO has grossly erred in disregarding the premium paid for calculating cost of acquisition, in complete contradiction to the DRP Directions, thereby violating the mandate of section 144C(13) of the ITA. 19. That the conclusions

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 270A of the Act for under- reporting/mis-reporting of income without appreciating that the Appellant has duly reported this transaction of capital gain

RENU SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

270A and 271D of the Act is incorrect, illegal and bad in law; of the Act is incorrect, illegal and bad in law; All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. notwithstanding

INDIA PROPERTY (MAURITIUS) COMPANY II,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gains of INR 1,526,171,940 as claimed by the Appellant in the tax return filed for AY 2018-19 even though tax residency certificate (‘TRC’) was issued to the Appellant by Mauritius Revenue Authorities. 3. The Learned AO erred in law in not following the binding directions issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”), Supreme Court

MADHURITTU PURI,UNITED KINGDOM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 2(2)(2) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2019-20

capital gain is very excessive. 6. That the levy of interest under section 234D of Rs.9,00,769 is illegal and at any rate, very excessive. 7. That the total income as assessed at Rs.2,43,86,326 and the income tax demand of Rs.67,12,119 as created thereon is very excessive. 8. That the penalty under section 270A

ESTEE INDIA FUND ,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 1(2)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

sections": ["143(3)", "144C(13)", "234A", "234B", "234C", "270A"], "issues": "Whether gains from trading in stock derivatives are taxable as capital

FIRESTONE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS INC,UNITED STATES vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned addition is deleted

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), assessee had taken a plea that the company is a separate entity from its share holders/members and, with transfer of shares, assets of the company are not transferred, and the same continues to be held by the company. It was also explained that since the assessee did not have PAN at the time of sale of shares, buyer M/s Sundaram Industries Pvt. Ltd. deducted @20% plus surcharge and cess on such Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee, which is reflected in From 26AS an

capital gain in the hands of the assessee. 4 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO initiating the penalty proceedings under section 270A

DELITE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gains was also disallowed and allowed to be carried forward.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "143(3)", "250", "8D", "234A", "234B", "234C", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance under Section 14A is justified when borrowed funds were not used for investments generating exempt income, and whether interest expenses can be set off against capital

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

NOIDA TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Capital Gains\n152,101\nEstimated computation of profits under 'Income from Other Sources'\nParticulars\nAmount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)\nInterest Income\nEstimated income assessable under Income from Other Sourses\n3,680,142\n3,680,142\n3,680,142\n13. Once the assessee has already added back the amount of interest paid of\nNCD's to the total income and paid

BITO-LAGERTECHNIK BITTMANN GMBH,GARMANY vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(2), INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital gains’ income and no further restriction regarding the method of computation of such income has been specified therein unlike the Act. 1.8 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has erred in alleging that the fair market value of the same share of the same company on the same date cannot

SICPA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[ Sicpa India Private Limited, Asst. Cit, 308-312, Mercantile House, Circle -22(2), 15 K.G. Marg, Vs. Delhi. Delhi-110001. Pan-Aadcs6121L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akash Singhal, Ca Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.11.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2019-20/10183865 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.09.2022 For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Distribution Of Security Inks. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was E-Filed On 15.02.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.6,74,74,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) On 30.09.2022 Wherein Disallowance Of Rs.23,09,391/- Was Made On Account Of Dividend Distributions Tax & Educational Cess Claimed By The Assessee As Sicpa India Private Limited Vs. Acit Expenses & Further Disallowance U/S 14A Of Rs.25,56,078/- Was Made & The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.7,71,05,940/-.

capital gain from debt oriented mutual funds cannot be placed in the category of exempt income u/s 14A of the Act and in these circumstances, Rule 8D(2) cannot be invoked. 28. Moreover, AO himself has excluded the investment from which non-exempt income has been earned by the assessee company in AY 2011-12 for purpose of computing average

LM WIND POWER AS ,DENMARK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Lm Wind Power As, Vs, Acit, Circle Juptervej 6, 6000 Kolding, International Tax 2(2)(1), Denmark – 999999. Delhi (Pan :Aabcl8590Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate Shri Arpitgoyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 27.01.2025 Passed By The Acit, Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020-21 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 29.07.2024 Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (He Act") For Assessment Year 2020-21 Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.81,14, 14,893 Is Bad In Law, Void- Ab-Initio & Therefore, Liable To Be Quashed And/ Or Set Aside.

270A or section 271 or section 271BA, if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction,— (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 92D; (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so; or (iii) maintains

RAMVIR YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD- 3(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

gain (“LTCG”) in the hands of the assessee.\n3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld.\nCIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 07.04.2025, dismissed the\nappeal of the assessee and confirmed the action of the AO.\n4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal\nbefore the Tribunal by taking following grounds

RAJEEV VASUDEVA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

gains and details of property owned/held by him as under:- Sl. No. Particulars Remarks of assessee for Whether claiming exemption u/s 54F purchase deed provided 1. Flat AR 515A in A residential flat owned by the Yes the Aralias, DLF assessee and rented for the City, Gurgaon- year @ Rs.30 Lacs p.a. 122009 2. Unit in Emaar Deposit with builder since