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

6, and situated in\nthe other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State.\n\n2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the\nbusiness property of a permanent establishment which an enterprise of a\nContracting State has in the other Contracting State or of movable property\npertaining to a fixed base available to a resident

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. RHT Heath Trust (‘RHT”), a business trust was constituted on 29th July, 2011 and registered on 25th September, 2012 under the laws

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

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO grossly erred in not AO grossly erred in not considering the valuation report furnished by considering

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

6. That the AO grossly erred in denying the Appellant the benefits of India - Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") and bringing to tax the short-term capital gains of INR 1,92,63,473/- earned by the Appellant during AY 2018-19 as chargeable to tax in India. 7. That the AO grossly erred in ignoring the findings

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

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

6) of the Act and holding that the long term capital gain be taxed @21.63 (including surcharge and cess) without appreciating the fact that Form 15CA/15CB filed by the payer cannot determine the final liability of the payee. (iii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of AO in relying

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

6 1. The Learned AO has erred in law by passing the final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act on 10 February 2023, which is beyond the time –limit specified under provisions of section 153 of the Act i.e. 30 September 2021 as extended vide the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation

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

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

6) of India- Ireland DTAA. Any\ngain on sale of RE would be taxable only in the state of residence.\n\n9. Here it would be imperative to refer to the provisions of India-\nMauritius DTAA. The relevant clauses of Article 13 dealing with ‘Capital\nGains' are extracted below:\n\n“3A. Gains from the alienation of shares acquired

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

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

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

6,53,86,582/-\nas Long Term Capital 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

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

Section 270A of the Act, citing a case of ‘under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting’, ignoring the fact that the entire income has been duly reported while furnishing the return of income; there is no income addition in the assessment order (only reclassification of nature of income and tax rate).” 3. The assessee is a company incorporated

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

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

6: Denial of tax rate of 25 per cent\n6.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in computing the\nincome-tax liability at the rate of 30 per cent instead of 25 percent applicable on\nthe Assessee under the normal provisions of the Act.\n6.2. In doing so, the Ld. AO did not consider

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

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.

capital intensive in nature, it is dominated by few large global customers who have operations in major territories around the world (e.g., Siemens Gamesa, GE, etc.). He submitted that the buyers of the rotor blades mainly operate globally and have the same technical and business requirements in all locations, they strongly prefer to deal with global suppliers and have

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/-.

6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supports the order of the lower authorities and submits that once the assesse is having exempt income in the shape of tax-free interest, the provisions of section 14A should be invoked and, therefore, he requested for the confirmation of the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. 7. Heard the parties

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Gain a loss loss No. 928 of PB) during the (Pg. No. 88 of (Pg. No. 226 of year PB) PB) Long term 4,09,10,680/-(Pg. 4,09,10,680/-(Pg. Nil capital loss No. 88 of PB) No. 226 of PB) (Pg. No. 928 of Carried forward for PB) current year The ld. AR fairly submitted even