DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

DCIT, CC-8, NEW DELHI vs. BJN HOLDINGS LTD. (DISSOLVED COMPANY THROUGH ITS SUCCESSOR BJN HOLDING (I) LTD.), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

VISWANATHAN SECURITIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gains or losses from one party to another by modifying client codes in the guise of rectifying an error. It became a practice to book artificial profits or losses in March to impact tax liabilities. It is generally done by buying or selling stocks intra-day so as to say consciously incur a loss and use that

RAM KUMAR TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

capital gains that should be assessed in the hands of the HUF, not the individual assessee. The addition for agricultural income was upheld due to lack of evidence.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "142(1)", "143(2)", "250", "292B

JAIPAL,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(5), GURGAON

The Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrajaipal V Ito C/O. Kunal Aggarwal & S Ward 2(5) Associates, 226, Jmd Megapolis, Gurgaon. Haryana 2Nd Floor, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon. Haryana Pan: Alapj3014C Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 Order

section 148 of the Act. The provision nowhere postulates or contemplates that the Assessing Officer cannot make any additions on any other ground unless some addition is made on the ground on which reussessment had been initiated. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13028 of 2011 against this decision was dismissed on August 19, 2011. The reassessment proceedings, thus

SHEELA DEVI ( WIFE - LEGAL HEIR OF VAS DEV (DECEASED)),DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 4(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Capital Gain tax is applicable on sale of the same. ” 3. On the basis of discrepancies, it is observed that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3)/147 is prima facie erroneous in so far as it is pre-judicial to the interest of revenue. 4. Keeping in view the above facts, you are provided an opportunity

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain of Rs.1,55,67,260 that was already subject to tax in the state of residence, i.e. Singapore. Cessation of Indian Investments In F.Y. 2019-2020, the Singapore-based Board of Directors of Argos sanctioned and Dissolution of the Appellant voluntary winding up. dated 5th Intimation March 2021 was thereafter placed before the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority

ARGOS HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(1)(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain of Rs.1,55,67,260 that was already subject to tax in the state of residence, i.e. Singapore. Cessation of Indian Investments In F.Y. 2019-2020, the Singapore-based Board of Directors of Argos sanctioned and Dissolution of the Appellant voluntary winding up. dated 5th Intimation March 2021 was thereafter placed before the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gain and non disclosure of source of investment , the AO has no authority available in law to pass order holding that the income had escaped assessment following as “adventure in nature of trade”. 8.1 Similarly Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ATS Infrastructure Ltd vs ACIT 473 ITR 595 and Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius vs ACIT

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 13, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gain and non disclosure of source of investment , the AO has no authority available in law to pass order holding that the income had escaped assessment following as “adventure in nature of trade”. 8.1 Similarly Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ATS Infrastructure Ltd vs ACIT 473 ITR 595 and Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius vs ACIT

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25 , DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gain and non disclosure of source of investment , the AO has no authority available in law to pass order holding that the income had escaped assessment following as “adventure in nature of trade”. 8.1 Similarly Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ATS Infrastructure Ltd vs ACIT 473 ITR 595 and Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius vs ACIT

DEEPAK AGARWAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, DELHI

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gain and non disclosure of source of investment , the AO has no authority available in law to pass order holding that the income had escaped assessment following as “adventure in nature of trade”. 8.1 Similarly Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ATS Infrastructure Ltd vs ACIT 473 ITR 595 and Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius vs ACIT

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

gains on sale of land and building and could not substantiate his claim about purchase of another house property, and thus the AO brought to tax LTCG and also levied penalty u/s 271(l)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further

CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

Capital Gain\nClaim of deduction U/s.54F\nRs.12,60,858/-\nRs.3,00,00,000/-\nRs.3,60,95,500/-\nRs.1,86,44,062/-\n7. In ITA No.3719/Del/2017 in pursuance to assessment order dated\n13.05.2016Ld. AO's order in penalty proceedings vide order dated 25.11.2016\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty of Rs.74,35,694 was imposed

SH. CHANDRA KANT SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the appellant/assessee are allowed

Capital Gain\nClaim of deduction U/s.54F\nRs.12,60,858/-\nRs.3,00,00,000/-\nRs.3,60,95,500/-\nRs.1,86,44,062/-\n7. In ITA No.3719/Del/2017 in pursuance to assessment order dated\n13.05.2016Ld. AO's order in penalty proceedings vide order dated 25.11.2016\nunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty of Rs.74,35,694 was imposed

MAA SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3886/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3887/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Maa Sharda Educational Society, Vs Addl. Cit, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Range-1, No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Dcit, Circle-1, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtm9201E Assessee By: Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing:09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2022

292B and assessee waived right t object to said defect which is against the law laid down by jurisdictional/other courts. 4. That without prejudice to above and only in alternative, Id. CIT(A) erred i merits is sustaining addition of corpus donation of Rs. 8,46,100/-, being capital Receipt as case is falling u/s 10(23C) (iiiad

MAA SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 1,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3886/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3887/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Maa Sharda Educational Society, Vs Addl. Cit, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Range-1, No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Dcit, Circle-1, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtm9201E Assessee By: Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing:09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2022

292B and assessee waived right t object to said defect which is against the law laid down by jurisdictional/other courts. 4. That without prejudice to above and only in alternative, Id. CIT(A) erred i merits is sustaining addition of corpus donation of Rs. 8,46,100/-, being capital Receipt as case is falling u/s 10(23C) (iiiad