ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 6(3) of the IT Act India read with Article 4(3) of the Treaty 26 (II) Judicial Dicta on tests for “control and management of affairs 223-239 situated wholly in India” 27 (III) Case of Dual Residence under the Treaty-Applicability of 235-239 Article 4(3) of Indo Mauritius DTAA Part-B-VI - Rebuttal of objections

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

capital gains tax. According to the Tribunal, it was not necessary that the whole amount of lump-sum consideration should have been received by the assessee in the previous year, and whatever the parties did subsequent to that year would have no bearing on the liability to tax as deemed income of the year under consideration. Reliance was placed

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

capital gain of Rs. 2,03,76,237/- (this LTCG has been calculated by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 2,04,37,654/-) as there was some error in the computation filed by the assessee with the return because in the indexing of the cost of land in F. Y. 1991-92, the assessee's half share was not considered

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 54F of the Act at ₹48,26,66,960/-. The facts relating to capital gain are that the assessee sold shares of M/s FCM Travel Solutions Pvt.Ltd. to M/s Flight Centre Mauritius for a total consideration of ₹53,14,40,275

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 54F of the Act at ₹48,26,66,960/-. The facts relating to capital gain are that the assessee sold shares of M/s FCM Travel Solutions Pvt.Ltd. to M/s Flight Centre Mauritius for a total consideration of ₹53,14,40,275

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act holding that interest expenditure relates to acquisition/ construction of tower sites and is therefore a capital expenditure. The said amount was computed by the ld AO by applying 12% interest on total borrowed capital utilized for capital expenditure for the period of 150 days (alleged to be average days for construction/ acquisition

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

gain under Article 13(4) of the Tax Treaty. The Assessing Officer has declined assessee’s claim broadly on the following reasons: 1. The group company's ultimate holding company is in Bermuda and beneficially owned by Mr. Gary Wayne Herbert who is claimed to be citizen of South Africa Further the structure of assessee company is transparent/pass through without

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

gain under Article 13(4) of the Tax Treaty. The Assessing Officer has declined assessee’s claim broadly on the following reasons: 1. The group company's ultimate holding company is in Bermuda and beneficially owned by Mr. Gary Wayne Herbert who is claimed to be citizen of South Africa Further the structure of assessee company is transparent/pass through without

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 3. INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES Article 31: General rule of interpretation 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

capital gain in financial year 2018-19 relevant to assessment year 2019-20. The only reason why this point is highlighted, argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, is to evidence the bona fides of the assessee since if such income was offered to tax in assessment year 20019-20, the interest element would be minimal. The bonafide

BITHAL NATH GUPTA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 31(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

275/-. 4.1 That under the facts and circumstances, provisions of section 68 are not applicable on the impugned addition of Rs.2,20,274/-. 4.2 That in the absence of providing and confronting alleged adverse material and in the absence of cross examination being allowed, no cognizance of such material can be taken, thus the A.O erred

AMIT GUPTA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 31(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

275/-. 4.1 That under the facts and circumstances, provisions of section 68 are not applicable on the impugned addition of Rs.2,20,274/-. 4.2 That in the absence of providing and confronting alleged adverse material and in the absence of cross examination being allowed, no cognizance of such material can be taken, thus the A.O erred

RC GUPTA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 31(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

275/-. 4.1 That under the facts and circumstances, provisions of section 68 are not applicable on the impugned addition of Rs.2,20,274/-. 4.2 That in the absence of providing and confronting alleged adverse material and in the absence of cross examination being allowed, no cognizance of such material can be taken, thus the A.O erred

GANESH GUPTA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 31(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

275/-. 4.1 That under the facts and circumstances, provisions of section 68 are not applicable on the impugned addition of Rs.2,20,274/-. 4.2 That in the absence of providing and confronting alleged adverse material and in the absence of cross examination being allowed, no cognizance of such material can be taken, thus the A.O erred

BRIJESH GUPTA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-31(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

275/-. 4.1 That under the facts and circumstances, provisions of section 68 are not applicable on the impugned addition of Rs.2,20,274/-. 4.2 That in the absence of providing and confronting alleged adverse material and in the absence of cross examination being allowed, no cognizance of such material can be taken, thus the A.O erred

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

capital gain on the sale of the shares. The Ld. CIT(A), has examined the issue in the correct prospective and rightly deleted the additions towards the addition under section 68 of the Act made by AO. The reasoning and findings of the Ld. CIT(A), while granting relief is on proper appreciation of law expounded by the judicial dicta

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(38) were duly meet by the assessee and the same was also accepted by the department as no adverse inference was made in respect of same. The details of capital gain were duly disclosed in the Income Tax Return and there was nowhere any concealment of income on the part of the assessee. However at a later stage