INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

x 2,40,83,333) for the AY 2013-14. 15. In this regard, you are show caused and requested to file your reply by 20/09/2018 as to why the income assessed by the AO not be enhanced and the amount of Rs.48,16,66,660/- not be added to your income for the assessment year 2013-14 under Section

INDIA TODAY ONLINE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 12(2), NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuita Nos. 6453 & 6454/Del/2018 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

x 2,40,83,333) for the AY 2013-14. 15. In this regard, you are show caused and requested to file your reply by 20/09/2018 as to why the income assessed by the AO not be enhanced and the amount of Rs.48,16,66,660/- not be added to your income for the assessment year 2013-14 under Section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Capital Hill Main Road Ranchi Sir, Sub: application for lease of area of 500 acres by m/s. Arcellormitallindian limited mining lease of iron and, manganese ore in West Singhbhum, Meghaburum Karampada RF) Ref: letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of director, mining, Jharkhand In reference to the above letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of the Director Mining Jharkhand it is informed

MEENU SATIJA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

x 7,76,785). Accordingly, the difference of fair market value of the bonus/ right equity shares and the value at which these shares were allotted to the assessee by M/s Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., comes to Rs. 1,61,05,074/- (Rs. 1,75,78,644 -Rs.14,73,570). Therefore, amount of Rs. 1,61,05,0747- needs

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviib) any compensation or other payment referred to in clause (xi) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement (by whatever name called) by the Central Government or a State Government

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviib) any compensation or other payment referred to in clause (xi) of sub-section (2) of section 56; (xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement (by whatever name called) by the Central Government or a State Government

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:

x) Long Term Capital gains as per A.O. = G) - (E) = Rs. 49,40,64,8001- (-) Rs. 11,20,12,407/- = Rs.38,20,52,393/- 12. Thus, the main issue for consideration is adoption of cost of acquisition of shares in computing the capital gains on sale thereof. The assessee has adopted indexed cost of acquisition with reference to the period

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

X 497 =Rs. 6,40,886/- 351 Long term Capital Gain =Rs.78,818441/- Short Term Capital Gain In respect of Siliguri Land Deemed sale consideration of 103.75 Kathas (Rs.15,00,00,000 - Rs.85,22,757) Rs.14,14,77,273 Cost of Acquisition Rs. 47,09,894 Rs.13,67,67,379/- In respect of Siliguri land Deemed Sale Consideration Rs.20

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MONI KUMAR SUBBA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

X 497 =Rs. 6,40,886/- 351 Long term Capital Gain =Rs.78,818441/- Short Term Capital Gain In respect of Siliguri Land Deemed sale consideration of 103.75 Kathas (Rs.15,00,00,000 - Rs.85,22,757) Rs.14,14,77,273 Cost of Acquisition Rs. 47,09,894 Rs.13,67,67,379/- In respect of Siliguri land Deemed Sale Consideration Rs.20

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

x), the earlier provisions of section 56(2)(vii)/(viia) have been made inoperative with effect from 1.04.2017. He further highlighted a point that a specific provision has been introduced in the form of section 50CA by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1.04.2018 to bring to tax in the hands of the transferor, the difference between the fair market value

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

56(2)(x) which also states that in case the assessee disputes the stamp duty value of the immovable property, the AO has no option but to refer the same to the Valuation Officer. Thus, the ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. ld. CIT(A) has gone wrong in interpreting the word “may” so as to hold that

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

X Rs.240/-) and this income is added to the total income of the assessee in terms of section 17(2)(iii) read with section 2(24)(iv) of the I.T. Act, 1961). 6. Before Ld. CIT (A) the appellant raised objections against validity of assumption of jurisdiction to reassess u/s 147 of the Act, besides challenging the addition on merits