DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

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

capital gain earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption was claimed in respect of a residential property acquired at Kanpur i.e the "new asset". That other than the "New Asset" the appellant was the legal owner of only one Residential Property at Sky lounge Pune. The L.D A.O however disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

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

capital gain earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption was claimed in respect of a residential property acquired at Kanpur i.e the "new asset". That other than the "New Asset" the appellant was the legal owner of only one Residential Property at Sky lounge Pune. The L.D A.O however disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant

M/S. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 14A by the Assessing Officer for calculation of income which does not form part of the total income. The assessee had submitted detailed calculation before the ld. CIT(A), in which he has already disallowed a sum of Rs.1,05,329/- whereas the Assessing Officer has mentioned in his order only Rs.971/-. The ld. CIT(A) after discussing

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

366 (Delhi)] (c) Ashok G Chauhan v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai [(2019) 105 taxmann.com 204 (Mumbai-Trib)]. In the light of the facts of the case as well as the judicial decisions referred above, it is held that the only reason the AO denied the exemption from long term capital gains u/s 54F was that the appellant

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

ANURAG TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita No. 2626/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anurag Tyagi, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O R B Tyagi, Flat No. 303, Ward-1(1), Super Tech, Avant Grade Plot Ghaziabad No. 1, Sector-5, Vaishali, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpt6848P Assessee By : Sh. Anup Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Sanjay Prasar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.01.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

capital gain within the specified time the assessee may use such funds for other purpose and may find resource from other source for investment in time the law does not expect that the sale amount should be kept in the locker and the same should be utilized in purchase of residential house neither the law nor does any circular require

ANDREY ANDREEV,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-(03), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2002/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Andrey Andreev, Vs Cit(Intl. Taxation)-03, C/O Sushil Budhia Associates, New Delhi Ca, 1103, Level 11, Universal Majestic, Behind Rbk International School, Ghatkopar Mankhurd, Link Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400043 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpa5288P Assessee By : Sh. Y. K. Kapur, Adv. & Sh. Bhushan Kapur, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2022

366/- has been allowed resulting into refund of Rs.76,44,140/- owing to computation of the taxable capital gains as NIL. The computation of capital gains was as under: • Sale cost of the residential cost of - Rs. 7,05,00,000/-. • Indexed cost of acquisition – Rs.3,45,92,417/- • Exemption u/s 54 claimed – Rs.3,59,07,583/- • Taxable capital gains

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

366 Konark Commerce & 1,21,200 Industries Ltd. 23.06.2003 10,69,200 14.01.2005 74,86,776 Limtex Investment Ltd. Rs.11,90,400/- Total Rs. 2,16,91,142/- A.Y. 2006-07: Name Purchase Cost (Rs.) Sold Amount (Rs.) 15.04.2004 1,95,600/- 24.11.2005 47,03,772/- Sudama Trading & Investment Ltd. 29.11.2005 41,07,409/- Total Rs. 1,95,600/- Rs.88

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

366 Konark Commerce & 1,21,200 Industries Ltd. 23.06.2003 10,69,200 14.01.2005 74,86,776 Limtex Investment Ltd. Rs.11,90,400/- Total Rs. 2,16,91,142/- A.Y. 2006-07: Name Purchase Cost (Rs.) Sold Amount (Rs.) 15.04.2004 1,95,600/- 24.11.2005 47,03,772/- Sudama Trading & Investment Ltd. 29.11.2005 41,07,409/- Total Rs. 1,95,600/- Rs.88

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

366 Konark Commerce & 1,21,200 Industries Ltd. 23.06.2003 10,69,200 14.01.2005 74,86,776 Limtex Investment Ltd. Rs.11,90,400/- Total Rs. 2,16,91,142/- A.Y. 2006-07: Name Purchase Cost (Rs.) Sold Amount (Rs.) 15.04.2004 1,95,600/- 24.11.2005 47,03,772/- Sudama Trading & Investment Ltd. 29.11.2005 41,07,409/- Total Rs. 1,95,600/- Rs.88

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’).

section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 17.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,95,190/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify the deductions/exemption from capital gains and investment

RAM MOHAN RAI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. While deciding the correctness of said order, the Tribunal took note of the other decisions and pointed out that in the case of CIT v. Devdas Naik[2014] 366 ITR 12/227 Taxman 157 (Mag.)/49 taxmann.com 30 (Bom.), wherein it was held that exemption under Section

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 28 (iv) of the income tax act, 1961. 4. The learned AO has raised an additional ground of appeal by letter dated 20 February 2018 as Under:- “without prejudice to the above, the CIT – A held that the receipts were in the nature of capital receipts or to have followed the order of predecessor in assessment year

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 28 (iv) of the income tax act, 1961. 4. The learned AO has raised an additional ground of appeal by letter dated 20 February 2018 as Under:- “without prejudice to the above, the CIT – A held that the receipts were in the nature of capital receipts or to have followed the order of predecessor in assessment year

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 28 (iv) of the income tax act, 1961. 4. The learned AO has raised an additional ground of appeal by letter dated 20 February 2018 as Under:- “without prejudice to the above, the CIT – A held that the receipts were in the nature of capital receipts or to have followed the order of predecessor in assessment year

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 28 (iv) of the income tax act, 1961. 4. The learned AO has raised an additional ground of appeal by letter dated 20 February 2018 as Under:- “without prejudice to the above, the CIT – A held that the receipts were in the nature of capital receipts or to have followed the order of predecessor in assessment year

INTERGLOBE AVIATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 28 (iv) of the income tax act, 1961. 4. The learned AO has raised an additional ground of appeal by letter dated 20 February 2018 as Under:- “without prejudice to the above, the CIT – A held that the receipts were in the nature of capital receipts or to have followed the order of predecessor in assessment year

SH. ADARSH KUMAR SWARUP,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

capital gain on sale of the land is chargeable to tax because the market value of the land on the date of acquisition of land by previous owner, i.e. Smt. Asha Swarup in terms of section 49 of the Act on 31 st March 1985 (being the date of death of Smt. Jyotsna Kumari Swarup) worked out by the registered

PHOOLA RANI CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 30(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royphoola Rani Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 30(1) Plot No. 23, Civic Centre, Road No. D-4 Dlf, Minto Road Phase-1, Dlf City New Delhi – 110002 Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent Acit, Vs. Phoola Rani Chadha Room No. 1001, 10Th C-51, Defence Colony Floor, E-2, Block, New Delhi – 110024 Civic Centre, Minto Road Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaapc1676L Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2017-18. “1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- on account of un-explained cash deposit without verifying the source, creditworthiness and genuineness