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

4) of the Act of Sh. I.C. Jindal on 26/27.03.2010 was confronted to Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta. Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta has admitted to have arranged entries of bogus capital gain to the assess group by arranging entries of purchases in back dates. He has admitted before Sh. I.C. Jindal that he had arranged entries of capital gain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

4 SCC 272 (SCC paras 42- 45) ; State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 108 ; Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs [1994] Supp (3) SCC 606 ; A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007) 2 SCC 725 and Reiz Electrocontrols (P.) Ltd. v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

4 SCC 272 (SCC paras 42- 45) ; State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 108 ; Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs [1994] Supp (3) SCC 606 ; A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007) 2 SCC 725 and Reiz Electrocontrols (P.) Ltd. v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order

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

583/- • Taxable capital gains - Rs. Nil 3. Owing to the fact that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54 against purchase of residential property at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the ld. CIT set aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the marginal note to Section 54F inserted by the Finance Act, 1982 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 which has been

ITO, WARD- 28(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHIVANI GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

Capital Gain of Rs.1,60,98,447/- exempt under section 10(38) of the Act on account of trading in shares of M/s. Eins Eductech Ltd., (Previously known as Thyrocare Lab) on BSE. The transactions were STT paid, therefore the gain was claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee had invested Rs.22

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

Capital Gain of Rs.1,60,98,447/- exempt under section 10(38) of the Act on account of trading in shares of M/s. Eins Eductech Ltd., (Previously known as Thyrocare Lab) on BSE. The transactions were STT paid, therefore the gain was claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee had invested Rs.22

USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 29(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who after considering submissions partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, he sustained the addition of Rs.60,96,961/- and also confirmed the Short Term Capital Gain. However, the ld. CIT(A) allowed exemption under Section 54F in respect of house for which the construction completion certificate was obtained

M/S DIGITAL RADIO (DELHI) BROADCASTING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No 1316 &1317/Del/2011 and ITA

Bench: Sh. I.C.Sudhir, Jm Andsh. Prashant Maharishi, Am A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd. V Acit C/O. O.P. Sapra & Associates, S Circle-10(1) C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Acit V Digital Radio (Delhi) Circle-10(1) S Broadcasting Ltd. New Delhi 401, Dakha House, 18/17, Wea Karol Bagh New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7864B A.Y. 2006-07 Digital Radio (Kolkata) V Acit Broadcasting Ltd. S Circle-10(1) C/O. O.P. Sapra & New Delhi Associates, C-763, New Friends Colony New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcr7863G

Gain under Section 45. 20. Therefore according to us, this section postulates following necessary ingredient: a. There should be a transfer of the License already granted. Page 15 of 23 b. There should be proceeds of the transfer 21. Before coming to the first condition of section 35ABB(2), we hold that license is a capital asset in view

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

583 only from the eligible units (on which deduction was claimed) without appreciating that communication expenses also related to non-eligible units. 4.4. The Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP erred in not considering the enhanced profits on account of ITA Nos. 2096 & 2495Del/2015 14 Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd. disallowances of prior period expenses amounting

M/S. CONCENTRIX DAKSH SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2096/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Concentrix Daksh Services India Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Erstwhile Known As Ibm Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. New Delhi Ltd.), 4Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. 8, Cyber City, Dlf, Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcd4187D

583 only from the eligible units (on which deduction was claimed) without appreciating that communication expenses also related to non-eligible units. 4.4. The Ld. AO and the Ld. DRP erred in not considering the enhanced profits on account of ITA Nos. 2096 & 2495Del/2015 14 Concentrix Daksh Services India Pvt. Ltd. disallowances of prior period expenses amounting

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

583/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22/03/2016,Assessee preferredan appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/02/2018, partly allowed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28/02/2018, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the findings and conclusion

M/S. SATNAM OVERSEAS EXPORTS,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2010-11 Satnam Overseas Exports, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 201, Vipps Centre, 2- 28, Community Complex, New Delhi. Masjid Moth, Gk-Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aacfs 5863 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Shri Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)- Xix, New Delhi, Vide Order Dated 21.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised As Many As Eleven Grounds Of Appeal. As A Matter Of Fact The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Pressed Only Ground Nos. 3, 4 & 5 Which Pertained To One Issue Only & The Said Grounds Are Reproduced Hereinbelow. “3. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That No Cognizance Can Be Taken Of The Claim Made By The Assessee That Sale Of Property Be Treated As Capital Gain & Indexation Benefit Should Be Allowed To The Assessee. The Action Of The Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 4. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessee Did Not Acquire Any Capital Asset & Hence Did Not Acquire Any Rights Over The Property. 5. The Interpretation Given By The Cit(A) Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Contrary To The Judgments & Well Settled Principles Of Law. Moreover The Cit(A) Has Failed To Examine The Material On Record In A Judicious Manner.” 2

Capital Gains” which was rejected by both the authorities below. Learned counsel, Miss Ananya Kapoor argued that the claim made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings is well within the law and held by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sam Global Securities Ltd. in ITA No.214/2013 dated 2.9.2013. The said decision

DCIT,C-11(1), NEW DELHI vs. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

4 new models (namely (a) Passion XPRO, (b) Ignitor, (c) Maestro and d) Impulse) using the technology provided by HM on payment of lump sum model fee and royalty. The assessee after separation from Honda Motors Corporation, Japan, was not in a position to independently develop and launch new models of motorcycles immediately. Therefore, in order to survive

OC SWEATERS LLP,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1711/Del/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Oc Sweaters Llp, Dcit Cpc F-8, Okhla South East Delhi, Vs. Bangalore. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaefo8261B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Capital account transactions. Section 43A applies when following conditions are fulfilled: - i) The asset must be acquired from outside India (Same is applied here). ii) The asset must be acquired for the purpose of Business and Profession. It is submitted that in such cases, the amount of exchange gain/loss arisen on such assets shall be added/deducted to the actual cost

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. GURNAM ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

gain so declared was Rs.1,13,43,238/- (Rs.91,98,024/- + Rs.21,45,214). He submitted that in the same year, the assessee sold a property located at Masjid Moth, New Delhi which was purchased in the year 1993-94 for Rs.84,26,500/- and the sale consideration of the property was shown at Rs.85,00,000/- and Rs.2

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

capital gains and income from other sources etc. The assessee filed Return of Income(ROI) on 30.10.2006 declaring total income at Rs.20,73,131/- for the Assessment Year 2006-07 in question. A search action was conducted on 20.01.2012 at the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 153A

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

capital gains and income from other sources etc. The assessee filed Return of Income(ROI) on 30.10.2006 declaring total income at Rs.20,73,131/- for the Assessment Year 2006-07 in question. A search action was conducted on 20.01.2012 at the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 153A

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI vs. PARAG DALMIA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

capital gains and income from other sources etc. The assessee filed Return of Income(ROI) on 30.10.2006 declaring total income at Rs.20,73,131/- for the Assessment Year 2006-07 in question. A search action was conducted on 20.01.2012 at the premises of the assessee under Section 132 of the Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 153A