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

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

3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act without following the specific directions of the DRP that the documents placed before the DRP shall be analyzed and a categorical finding with regards to the acquisition, possession and transfer of the shares of Medfin India Private Limited shall be made by the AO by way of speaking order, whereas

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

3,16,74,056/- into long term 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

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

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

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

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

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

3. That on the facts and circu That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. mstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering that the Ld. AO failed to CIT(A) grossly erred in not considering that the Ld. AO failed to CIT(A) grossly erred

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

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

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.

3), the assessing officer in the impugned draft assessment order has proposed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AA of the Act alleging non-disclosure of certain international transactions.In this regard, he brought to our notice the provisions of 45 Section 271AA of the Act which read as under: “Penalty for failure to keep and maintain information and document

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

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

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

270A.” 10. The assessee also filed clarificatory/supplementary ground of appeal under rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the same is reproduced below: "24. Impugned order is time barred as no valid reference appears to have been made to the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer ("TPO”) as prescribed under section 92CA of the Act." 11. At the time of hearing

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

270A of the Act. Page 5 of 46 ITA Nos. 462 AND 2409/Del/2022 Tupperware India Private Ltd 3. The Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a private limited company

TUPPERWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2018-19 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

270A of the Act. Page 5 of 46 ITA Nos. 462 AND 2409/Del/2022 Tupperware India Private Ltd 3. The Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a private limited company

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

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 of the Act. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter