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

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Capital Company Ltd. (‘ KMCC’) to carry out an equity valuation of SBP as of February 28, 2014 (“Valuation Date”) and provide the price per share of SBP, in relation to the proposed acquisition of shares of SBP that CGP does not already own from the Sellers. SBP, through a series of companies in the HoldCo Chain, is an indirect shareholder

OPUS REALITY DEVELOPMENT LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-225/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2009-10) Opus Reality Development Ltd. Vs Acit Circle-13(1) 404, Roots Tower, New Delhi District Centre, Laxmi Nagar (Respondent) Delhi Aaaco9775H (Appellant)

Section 71(2)] of Income-tax Act. However, for the sake of completeness, we also refer the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. and CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. as cited by the Learned A.R. on the proposition that interpretation of a taxing statute should be construed as beneficial to the assessee

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Capital Gain declared by the assessee was arranged transactions. The operative part of the Tribunal order is as under: 9.5. From the above, it is clear that Mr. Mukesh Choksi is double 'speaking in his statements i.e. one given before the A.O. and the one during cross examination before the A.O. Under these circumstances one has to see the evidentiary

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Capital Gain declared by the assessee was arranged transactions. The operative part of the Tribunal order is as under: 9.5. From the above, it is clear that Mr. Mukesh Choksi is double 'speaking in his statements i.e. one given before the A.O. and the one during cross examination before the A.O. Under these circumstances one has to see the evidentiary

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

capital gain is being worked out as under: Compensation received by the assessee company Rs.55,09,63,271/- ITA No.4710-Del-2010 Against the assets Less: w.d.v. of block of assets Rs. 1,23,60,483/- Rs.53,86,02,788/- 23. The assessee company had originally shown to have sold 50 lakh shares of face value 10 each of its subsidiary company

KARAMJIT SINGH DHANJAL,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Smt. Diva Singh & Shri L.P. Sahu

capital gain on UTI liquid plus fund institution plan was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act as also to reflect correct figures of sale of land at Kheri Sadh and rental income. Merely because the assessee disclosed additional income suo motu after issue of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, does not amount to detection

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 14.3.2 (ii) as expressly provided in this Section 3.12.4 and (in) as expressly provided in Exhibit H, and any remaining balances of the Maintenance Supplemental Rent following the Expiry Date, after application of the foregoing provisions, shall be retained by Lessor as its sole property, with the exceptions set forth in Exhibit H. To the extent any maintenance expenses

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 14.3.2 (ii) as expressly provided in this Section 3.12.4 and (in) as expressly provided in Exhibit H, and any remaining balances of the Maintenance Supplemental Rent following the Expiry Date, after application of the foregoing provisions, shall be retained by Lessor as its sole property, with the exceptions set forth in Exhibit H. To the extent any maintenance expenses

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 14.3.2 (ii) as expressly provided in this Section 3.12.4 and (in) as expressly provided in Exhibit H, and any remaining balances of the Maintenance Supplemental Rent following the Expiry Date, after application of the foregoing provisions, shall be retained by Lessor as its sole property, with the exceptions set forth in Exhibit H. To the extent any maintenance expenses

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 14.3.2 (ii) as expressly provided in this Section 3.12.4 and (in) as expressly provided in Exhibit H, and any remaining balances of the Maintenance Supplemental Rent following the Expiry Date, after application of the foregoing provisions, shall be retained by Lessor as its sole property, with the exceptions set forth in Exhibit H. To the extent any maintenance expenses

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 14.3.2 (ii) as expressly provided in this Section 3.12.4 and (in) as expressly provided in Exhibit H, and any remaining balances of the Maintenance Supplemental Rent following the Expiry Date, after application of the foregoing provisions, shall be retained by Lessor as its sole property, with the exceptions set forth in Exhibit H. To the extent any maintenance expenses

ANJU AHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CIRCLE 49(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

433/-. The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 3,71,36,759/- for investment made in the purchase of residential property. Further, the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the Capital Gain Account Scheme on 31/07/2017 and claimed deduction on this additional amount also. During the course

M/S. MADURA BIOTECH (P) LTD.,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

433 (Guj.) was where the CIT(A) had allowed the claim of the assessee observing that the Memorandum of Association of the Assessee company showed that business of purchase and sale of securities was not the main object and the assessee had maintained distinction between trading assets and non-trading assets in the books of account and only net surplus

SATISH KISHORE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 47(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and during the course of scrutiny proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed sale of following shares claimed under exempted long-term capital gain: Sl. No. of Date of Cost of Sale Name of Shares No. shares purchase acquisition consideration

NAWAL KISHORE,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 47(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and during the course of scrutiny proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed sale of following shares claimed under exempted long-term capital gain: Sl. No. of Date of Cost of Sale Name of Shares No. shares purchase acquisition consideration

NORWEST VENTURE PARTNERS X - MAURITIUS,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

section 90 of the Act was not implemented. 12. Thus, he submitted, in terms with CBDT Circular No.789 dated 13.04.2000, TRC is the most authentic evidence to prove the tax residency of the assessee. He submitted, the TRC is issued by the Tax Authority in Mauritius upon fulfilment of various conditions under Mauritius Income Tax Act. He submitted, once

SH. DEVENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishidevender Kumar Aggarwal, Cit 1533, Ranu Bagh, New Delhi Delhi-Ix, New Delhi Vs. Pan:Aaapa1974F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain was also before the assessing officer. The application of the circular No. 359 has been considered by the Hon’ble Bombay high court in case of Praveen P Bharucha versus DCIT in 348 ITR 325, albeit with reference to the provisions of section 148 of the income tax act wherein it has been held as under