HAREON SOLAR SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

2 of the assessee stands dismissed, in terms of our detailed\ndiscussions in this order. We affirm the assessment order passed by the AO. We\nOrder accordingly.\n\n9.7 The hearing in the instant appeal was concluded on 05th January, 2026, and\nwe will be failing in our duty if at this stage we donot put on record, the recent

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

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

section 270A(2) as initiated for alleged under-reporting of income is not applicable on the facts and under the law in Appellant’s case.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 relate to addition of Rs. 2,23,23,116/- towards long term capital gains

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

2) ("Ld. TPO") under section 92CA of the Act, and thereby contravening the provisions of section 92CA (4) of the Act and available judicial precedents. b) the learned Dispute Resolution Panel ("Ld. DRP") erred in stating that the Ld. AO is not precluded from re-examining/ re-evaluating the international transactions wherein certain facts have not been brought

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 arising on sale of CCD as exempt in the income tax return form.” 3. RHT Heath Trust (‘RHT”), a business trust was constituted on 29th July, 2011 and registered on 25th September, 2012 under the laws

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

2 days prior to purchase date + 1 paisa] to convert INR 76,99,23,779 (the "Purchase Price"), which amount equals the fair market value of the Shares at the Purchase Date based on certificate of fair value of such Shares obtained from a chartered accountant in India as per Indian exchange control regulations.” 18. As per the matter

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

2. That without prejudice, considering the facts and circumstances of That without prejudice, considering the facts and circumstances of That without prejudice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not rendering the e and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not rendering

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

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

capital of a\ncompany and includes stock.". The owner of the shares has various rights\nincluding voting right. Though the term Derivatives is not defined\nanywhere, the term \"securities\" defined under section 2(81) of the\nCompanies Act as per clause (h) of section 2 of the Securities Contracts\n(Regulations) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956) includes derivatives. Therefore

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

2. Without prejudice to above, the Learned AO has grossly erred in the law and on facts by denying the exemption under Article 13 of the India Mauritius Tax Treaty (‘IM Treaty’) on the long-term capital gains of INR 1,526,171,940 as claimed by the Appellant in the tax return filed for AY 2018-19 even though

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

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

2\nb. No Claim of Brought-Forward Interest in Subsequent Years: -\ni. The Ld. DR's inference that the Appellant has claimed the benefit of Section\n948(4) carry-forward in subsequent years is legally and factually\nunsustainable. For A.Y. 2021-22 and AY. 2023-24, the Appellant claimed\ndeductions

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

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

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in computing the tax on the long term capital gain on sale of unlisted shares at the rate of 21.63% (including surcharge and cess) under section

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

capital gain, therefore, he invoked the\nprovisions of section 14A of the Act and disallowed the entire amount of loss\nexpenses claimed of Rs.1,29,85,292/-.\n3.\nAgainst the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who\nvide impugned order dated 19.01.2024 has confirmed the additions and dismissed\nthe appeal of the assessee.\n4.\nAggrieved

HAIER APPLIANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, IT & TP DELHI 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

capital, which may warrant the applicability of section 28(iv). e. The action of AO/ DRP in mis-interpretating the provision of Law and its application thereof is patently bad, untenable and illegal in the eyes of law. GROUNDS PERTAINING TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 27. That on facts and in laws, the AO/ TPO/ DRP erred in holding that the Appellant

KREUZ CHALLENGER PTE LTD,SINGAPURE vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Kreuz Challenger Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 2, Venture Drive, International Taxation #24-01 Vision Exchange, Circle 2(1)(2), Singapore , 999999 New Delhi. Pan : Aahck3082A

270A of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither under- reported nor misreported its income for the relevant AY. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of hearing

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

270A of the Act.” 3. The assessee has also moved an application under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 dated 08.02.2024 seeking admission of additional ground which read as under: “"Re: Disallowance of Deduction under section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs 12,01,42,780 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts