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)

IV. The capital gain arising on the securities purchased before 1 April 2017 has been grandfathered and cannot be brought to tax in India 27. The Assessee submits that with effect from 1 April 2017 amendments have been made to Article 13 of the India-Mauritius DTAA whereby Article 13(3A) has been inserted which provides that capital gain arising

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

35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-, being the expenditure on account of foreseen price increase (in short "FPI). disregarding the consistent and accepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last

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

35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-, being the expenditure on account of foreseen price increase (in short "FPI). disregarding the consistent and accepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

35,779/- earned by the assessee from transactions in\nshares is taxable in India as Capital Gain as per Income Tax Act 1961 as\nper Article 13(A) of DTAA, the same is added back to the income of the\nassessee. The penalty u/s 270A for underreporting of income is being\ninitiated.\n\n4. Aggrieved with the order

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

35,58,00,000/-. Copy of the relevant sale deed is annexed at PB Pg. no. 320-353. 11. Your Honors in this regard, kind attention needs to be drawn towards the provisions of Section 47(iv) of the Act as reproduced hereunder: - "47. Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers: (i) ………… (ii) ………… (iii) ………… (iv

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

iv. Copy of the order dated 30th August, 2011 passed by the CIT(A) under Section 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2006-2007 in the case of the Petitioner. Submissions of counsel for the Revenue 22. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

iv. Copy of the order dated 30th August, 2011 passed by the CIT(A) under Section 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2006-2007 in the case of the Petitioner. Submissions of counsel for the Revenue 22. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue

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

35(1)(iv) of\nthe Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant.\n6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in\nmaking disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-. being the expenditure on account\nof foreseen price increase (in short \"FPI), disregarding the consistent and\naccepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last

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

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: Provided that in case the aforesaid arrangement involves a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, the amount of profits from such transaction shall be determined having regard

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

35 of the paper book in support of his claim\nthat the land sold by the assessee was being used for agricultural purposes. The\nsame is reproduced for ready reference:-\nCASE NO.68\nOF SUD\nIONAL\nUnder Section: DURAT\nGS. Asolu\nBhupinder Singh Bh\nCounsel Procent: Snit. Sakahi Popli for Geon Sebha\nORDER\nThis order shall dispose off the proceedings

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)

35 statutory time period which is a pre-requisites for claiming the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The relevant findings of the AO in penalty order reads as under:- “From the above it is clear that the section clearly states that the assesse invests the net sale consideration of the capital asset to construct a residential house within

SAIF PARTNERS INDIA IV LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION-3(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

IV Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Company" or the "Assessee") Permanent Account Number : AAOCS8595D Assessment Year : 2017-18 Financial Year : 2016-17 Subject: Notice dated 8 November 2019 issued under Section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the "Act") This is in connection with notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued by your office dated

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

35. To sum up, interest is different from compensation. However, interest paid on the excess amount under Section 28 of the 1894 Act depends upon a claim by the person whose land is acquired whereas interest under Section 34 is for delay in making payment. This vital difference needs to be kept in mind in deciding this matter. Interest under

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

iv) For facilitating such bogus entries, the brokers were paid commission in cash generally around 6% of the value of the transaction or Rs.0.50 to Rs.1/- for every Rs.100/-transacted. (v) But for the price rigging and manipulative actions of the brokers the assessee would not have earned such Long Term Capital Gain. (vi) The motive of the price manipulation

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

1,14,252 • Proportionate indexed cost of construction during FY 2008-2010 77,50,652 × (374.86/940.61) × 1024/711 = 44,48,649 Total Indexed Cost of Acquisition = 69,43,452 Resulting Correct Long-Term Capital Gain = 6,47,06,548 (against the assessed figure of 7,01,46,841 or the incorrect revised figure of 5,95,05,940) 5. That

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to s. 43B(b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with s. 36(va) with its Explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

Capital Gain. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised grounds of appeal and also filed detailed written submissions which are reproduced by the ld. CIT (A) at pages 7 to 15 of the impugned order. After considering the above submissions, ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with regard to Ground Nos.1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

iv) That the learned AO has also erred in law in disallowing\nadditional cost to the property incurred in F.Y. 2017-18\namounting to Rs.42,50,053/- and in F.Y. 2018-19 amounting\nto Rs.54,82,650/-. The action of the learned AO is illegal and\nbad in law.\n\n7.7.1 In this ground, appellant has contended disallowance made