SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

section 68 and in making the impugned addition. 25.4 Sannat Kumar vs. ACIT (2020) 122 taxmann.com 75 (Delhi- Trib): in this case the assessee purchased shares of CSL @ Rs. 10/- per share and 23 after one year sold the same at Rs. 476/- to Rs. 503/- per share. The AO found that CSL had been duly investigated by the Department

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

75,791/- under the head income from business. Further,\nappellant has shown short term capital loss of Rs. (-)1,69,14,140/-\nby way of selling property at DLF Gurgaon. In its ROI, appellant has also\nshown LTCG of Rs.4,95,89,657/- by way of sale of property being\nPlot No. 20 Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi

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

75,00,000/- under the bifurcation Land ` 4,72,00,000/- and Building ` 1,03,00,000/-. The capital Gain raised from sale of assets was invested in the Bonds ‘Rural Electrification Corporation Limited’ under section

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

Capital Gain = 6,47,06,548 (against the assessed figure of 7,01,46,841 or the incorrect revised figure of 5,95,05,940) 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the proof of construction of the new property was duly submitted during the appellate proceedings in the form

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

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

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

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain of Rs.17,13,015/- u/s\n54 of the Act and therefore the addition of Rs.17,13,015/- made by the\nAO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Accordingly, grounds no.1\nand 2 of the appeal is allowed.\n10. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had\npurchased a property at N-1 Kailash Colony

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings also, the assessee filed written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his order. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned income shown

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of 100% equity of Modi Tyres Ltd. determined at ₹38,55,75,851/- based on gross sale consideration of ₹117.61 crore was thus sought to be revised and reduced to ₹13,07,59,361/- by way of a revised computation. The Assessing Officer however found the revised claim of lower LTCG to be untenable

ITO,WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. VINOD GUGNANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds of Appeal of the Revenue fails, consequently the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

75,00,000/-. The assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 6,20,94,441/- as calculated in the assessment order. The assessee claimed deduction under section

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gains (‘LTCG’) of Rs.50,44,027/- and the exempted LTCG of Rs.8,90,66,252/-. However, it offered a sum of Rs.8,21,45,406/- as income under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The case was picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.11,75

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gains (‘LTCG’) of Rs.50,44,027/- and the exempted LTCG of Rs.8,90,66,252/-. However, it offered a sum of Rs.8,21,45,406/- as income under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The case was picked up for scrutiny and consequential assessment was completed at income of Rs.11,75

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 gains tax by taking CII for financial year 1981-82. 47. To the similar effect are the following judgements: (a) Arun Shungloo Trust v. CIT: 205 Taxman 456 (Del.) (b) CIT vs. Raman Kumar Suri: 255 CTR 257 (Bombay) (c) CIT vs. Smt. Nita Kamlesh Tanna: 220 Taxman 165 (Mag) (Bombay) (d) CIT v. Gautam Manubhai Amin: 218 Taxman

ANU GERA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Accordingly Ground No. 3 of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

75,000 (25.07.2008) Indexed Cost of 7,84,587 2,41,231 Acquisition (As per Agreement (As per Power to sell of attorney Capital Gain 16,90,413 22,33,769 Exemption u/s 54 16,90,413 20,00,000 Long Term Capital Nil 2,33,769 Gain 9. After considering the various facts, the AO recomputed the long term

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

capital gains.” 11.6.1 The relevant part of the circular no. 672 is reproduced as under: “Attention is invited to Board's Circular No. 471, dated 15th October, 1986 (F. No. 207/27/85-ITA.II) [published in (1987) 59 CTR (St) 19]. It was clarified therein that cases of allotment of flats under the self financing scheme of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) should

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

75,000/- `2,38,25,000/-” 14. The undisclosed capital gain on the sale of KG Farm was taken at `47,86,893/- this was computed as follows: - “Actual Sale Consideration received `3,10,00,000/- Less: 1. Actual cost of acquisition ` 2,49,00,000/- Add : Others expenses Like Stamp paper, repair & renovation

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Section 50 (2) of the Act, the entire surplus amount received by the Assessee on the sale of the aforesaid office premises would be liable to „short term capital gains‟. Accordingly, capital gain was calculated by the Assessing Officer by deducting the written down value of the „block of assets‟ as on 01.04.1997 which appeared in the books

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD

gains arising from the transfer of a right to carry on business or any negative 'non- compete' right also could not be brought to tax. In terms of the decisions in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty (supra) and PNB Finance Limited v. CIT, New Delhi (2008) 307 ITR 75 the settled legal position is that in the absence