MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains and was in essence a capital receipt. j. The New Delhi Bench of AAR in the case of Lead Counsel of Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF), In re: [2016] 381 ITR 1 held that Settlement amount received for surrender of capital asset of 'right to sue' has to be treated as 'capital receipt' not liable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

Gain depending upon the treatment of various shares for the purpose of pure investment or not. Whatever the method adopted by the assessee, the same has to be followed consistently. The ld CIT(A) has considered the various circulars particularly Circular no 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016, which has settled the issues under consideration. Therefore we do not see any reason

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)

section 10(38), were sham transactions. It was held that it was a case of bogus long-term capital gain obtained through brokers and that the assessee had used colourable device for avoidance of tax. The receipt of Rs.23,68

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)

68. The lower authorities have denied treaty benefits to the Assessee on the basis that the liquidation of ETIL was undertaken with a view to shift the locus of shares from India to Mauritius without any commercial purpose and, was a colourable device to avoid capital gains tax in India. 69. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate the commercial

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gain and made addition under section 68 of the Act\nby treating long term capital gain as unaccounted Income

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset. 49. In CIT v. Narang Diary (supra), the issue concerned the interpretation of the words "otherwise transferred" in Section 33 of the Act. The context was the provision of rebate in respect of a new machinery and plant

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset. 49. In CIT v. Narang Diary (supra), the issue concerned the interpretation of the words "otherwise transferred" in Section 33 of the Act. The context was the provision of rebate in respect of a new machinery and plant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

capital gains under Section 50(2) of the Act and the refusal to allow deduction under Section 54EC of the Act before the CIT (Appeals). It would appear that before the CIT (Appeals) the assessee submitted valuation reports from an approved valuer in support of the bifurcation of the purchase price between the land and building

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

section 32 of the Act, consistent with his finding that the aforesaid expenditure is capital in nature. 9. That the assessing officer /DRP erred on facts and in law in treating gains from sale and purchase of mutual funds as "business income” as against the same being declared under the head capital gains" by the appellant. 9.1 That the assessing

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

section 32 of the Act, consistent with his finding that the aforesaid expenditure is capital in nature. 9. That the assessing officer /DRP erred on facts and in law in treating gains from sale and purchase of mutual funds as "business income” as against the same being declared under the head capital gains" by the appellant. 9.1 That the assessing

VIPIN JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

Section 68, which pertains to unexplained cash credits, is not substantiated by any credible evidence. Significantly, there is a glaring absence of any material that would indicate the assessee used an accommodation entry provider for the purpose of creating fictitious long-term capital gains

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

section 32 of the Act, consistent with his finding\nthat the aforesaid expenditure is capital in nature.\n9. That the assessing officer /DRP erred on facts and in law in treating\ngains from sale and purchase of mutual funds as \"business income” as against\nthe same being declared under the head capital gains\" by the appellant.\n9.1 That the assessing

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

Section 68, the primary onus lies upon the assessee to prove the nature and source of credit. Here, in this case, the nature has been stated to be share application money which has been duly allotted by the assessee company to the subscribing company for which all the documentary evidences, including from ROC has been filed. The source of credit

ADITYA SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Aditya Saraf Vs. Ito, Ward-17(4) B-45, Inder Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 012 Pan Awwps1249K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Income Tax Act and Rs. 3,28,295/- made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act based on suspicion, conjectures and without any evidence is unjust illegal arbitrary, illusory , unwarranted and deserve to be deleted. 2. That the action of the CIT(A) in not accepting the Long term capital gain

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68,400 in the financial year 2010-11 by the Government registered valuer deserves to be adopted. In support of its contentions, the assessee relied upon the decision of the SMC Bench of the Jaipur tribunal in the case of Shri Kanhaiya Lal lalvani in ITA No.364/JP/2022. 3.6 Per contra, the Ld.DR would like to place reliance upon the order

ASHISH GARG,NOIDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 is in clear violation of simple provisions of that section.” 12. Similarly in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Basant R. Aggarwal (supra) the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal held as under: “16.2 The objective of the protective assessment is that in case substantive assessment made in the hands of other person not sustained then tax shall be collected

ASHISH GARG,NOIDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1725 & 1726/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Ashish Garg Acit B-16, Sector-2, Noida, Vs. Central Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh. Third Floor, Room No.363, Pan No.Aejpg9666H Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68 is in clear violation of simple provisions of that section.” 12. Similarly in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Basant R. Aggarwal (supra) the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal held as under: “16.2 The objective of the protective assessment is that in case substantive assessment made in the hands of other person not sustained then tax shall be collected

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

68. Lastly the revenue has relied heavily on the decision of coordinate bench in case of Mahindra Telecommunications Investment Private Limited (2016) 69 taxmann.com 431 stating that issue is squarely covered by the decision in favour of the revenue. Revenue says that facts in both the cases are similar wherein the foreign company agreed to certain consideration to be paid