DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains through shares of M/s CCL\nInternational Ltd. had also admitted that they were also Involved in trading\nof these Jamakharchi Companies through which manipulative transactions\nin securities to either artificially raise or lower the market rate of the shares\nare being done.\n\n10. Abhimanyu Soin Vs ACIT 2018-TIOL-733-ITAT-CHD\n\nwhere Hon'ble ITAT

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 90(1) of IT Act which is reproduced below: "90(1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India,- (a) for the granting of relief in respect of- (i) income on which have been paid both income-tax under this Act and income-tax in that

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

capital gains not under the head income from\nBusiness.\n36. The next issue is whether the CBDT circular be applied prospectively or\nretrospectively, we observed that this issue was already addressed by the Hon’ble\nCalcutta High Court in the case of Century Plyboards I Ltd (supra), wherein it was\nheld that CBDT Circular 6/2016 dated 29/2/2016 would be applicable

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

276 1,20,26,993 Quantity Sold (in 83.17 894.68 276.82 carats) FMV as on 5,923 5,742 5,754 01.04.2001 Cost of 4,92,606 51,37,247 15,92,703 Acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gains (COA) Indexed Cost of 13,64,979 1,39,73,311 44,59,568 Acquisition (ICOA) Taxable Capital

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

276 1,20,26,993 Quantity Sold (in 83.17 894.68 276.82 carats) FMV as on 5,923 5,742 5,754 01.04.2001 Cost of 4,92,606 51,37,247 15,92,703 Acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gains (COA) Indexed Cost of 13,64,979 1,39,73,311 44,59,568 Acquisition (ICOA) Taxable Capital

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

276 1,20,26,993 Quantity Sold (in 83.17 894.68 276.82 carats) FMV as on 5,923 5,742 5,754 01.04.2001 Cost of 4,92,606 51,37,247 15,92,703 Acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gains (COA) Indexed Cost of 13,64,979 1,39,73,311 44,59,568 Acquisition (ICOA) Taxable Capital

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

gain which arises on parting the capital asset at the first stage itself, it is a case of business transaction which is completed when the rights so acquired by the assessee are exercised; none can make profits by dealing with himself, as is the settled legal position in the light of the settled legal position in the case

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

gain which arises on parting the capital asset at the first stage itself, it is a case of business transaction which is completed when the rights so acquired by the assessee are exercised; none can make profits by dealing with himself, as is the settled legal position in the light of the settled legal position in the case

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

capital gains. b) Smt. V A Tharabaivs DCIT in ITA No. 1894/MDS/2011 (Chennai Bench) as reported in 19 taxmann.com 276 “11. It is after the purchase of the property that the hell broke loose against the assessee in the form of civil litigation. The litigation started on 25-2-2008 and ended only on 19-9-2011. By that time

R.C. NIRULA & SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshr.C. Nirula & Sons Huf, Vs. Asst. Commissioner A-2, Anand Niketan, Of Income Tax, New Delhi Circle-52(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaahr6050F Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Praveen Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2024

gains "arose" from the transfer of a capital asset so as to attract Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act.” (emphasis supplies by us) 21. Hence, the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would be squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the transfer of booking rights contemplated

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 derived from sale of investment acquired after 1st April 2017 and are not applicable on grandfathered investments made before 1st April 2017. He has stressed on the fact that as per the Financial Services Act, 2007 (Mauritius), corporations holding a GBL-I License are required to be administered at all the times by a management company holding Global

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

276 ITR PAGE 1 (BANGALORE), wherein the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the incorporeal right to the software i.e. copyright had remained with the owner and the same was not transferred to the Assessee. The Tribunal in the case of SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS (SUPRA) had held that the right to use of a copyright is totally different from the right

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT (U.P.) vs. NITA RASTOGI, MEERUT (U.P.)

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Acit Vs Nita Rastogi Circle-1(1)(1) 32-C, Janta Nagar, Garh Road, Meerut-250001. Meerut-250002. Pan-Aanpr7715E Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025

276/- and were sold all the shares in the previous year on various dates for a total sum of INR 3,69,14,690/- and the long terms capital gain of earned on this script of INR 3,55,88,404/- was declared in the ITR and claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Ld.AR submits that

JATIN GARG & SONS (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(5), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

capital gain beneficiaries are routing their unaccounted income through colourable device and thus evading tax. The Assessing Officer after elaborately examining the issues at hand recorded that the Company was having market price of share at around Rs. 2.5 per share and during this period the assessee was allotted 1000 shares of the company for the share having face value

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

276,403 Operating Cost 78,498,772,084 18,501,220 Operating Profit 2,239,593,461 2,775,183 OP/PR 2.77% OP/OC 15.00% 9. In order to bench mark international transaction in the nature of import of finished goods and other aggregated transactions, TNMM was considered as the most appropriate method and the ratio of operating profit to operating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, GURGOAN, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, being devoid of any merit

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.2532/िद"ी/2023 (िन.व. 2016-17) Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-3(1)(1), ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Delhi 110002

section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 2 ITA 2532/Del/2023 (AY 2016-17) 2. The department has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising following grounds of appeal:- (i) "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL-III vs. UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD

Appeal is dismissed

capital of not less than five hundred thousand rupees; (iii) the hotel is for the time being approved for the purposes of this sub-section by the Central Government; (iv) the business of the hotel starts functioning after the 31st day of March, 1981, but before the 1st day of April [1991]. [(4A) This section applies to the business