ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU JAIN, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Gains disclosed by the assessee in relation to the scrip namely ETTL (previously known as Malti Textiles Ltd.) and invoked Section 68 of the Act to assess the sale consideration arising from sale of shares of ETTL as unexplained income. The income was thus assessed at Rs.3,86,68,780/- as against the returned income of Rs.34

KAMAL KANT,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-54(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamal Kant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward K-15 South Extension –One 54(1) Civic Centre Delhi New Delhi 110049 Pan No. Aaipk 1374K (Appellant) (Respondent)

920/- on 30-03-2010. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee claimed the loss of Rs. 39,22,000/- under the head Business and Profession and income under the head capital gain at Rs. 42,60,922/-. After processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the act by the CPC, a demand

ITO, WARD-4(4), GURGAON vs. TRIBHAWAN KUMAR PARNAMI, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 143(2) and 143(1) were issued and served on the assessee and the assessee was granted sufficient time to submit details. He has further mentioned that additions in the assessment order were made after taking into consideration the submissions being made by the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the AO in the remand report stated that

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

capital gains is exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. In support of the claim, the appellant relied on the decision of CIT, Faridabad vs Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR(1). The AO did not accept the objections of the appellant as he said that section 56(2)(viii) of the Act read with section 145A(b) is very clear that

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VNG IMPEX P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

920/- should be computed under the head capital gains and should be allowed to be carried forward as short term capital loss. Further it was mentioned that the assessee claimed loss on sale of investment at Rs.23,37,52,919/-. In this assessment year, assessee has claimed the loss after sale consideration as short term capital loss. Further

SURENDER PAL,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2014-15 Surender Pal Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir Of Assessee) Ward 69(2), 3/326, Upper Ground Floor, Room No. 205, D-Block, Nirankari Colony, Civic Centre, Delhi – 110 009 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Ahupp1615Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 54. The AO determined the Net Capital Gain as under:- Total Sales Consideration Rs.3,10,00,000 Less: i. Indexed Cost of acquisition computed by Rs. 58,28,830 assessee ii.Cost of house purchased on 04.07.2014 Rs. 56,20,250 Rs. 1,14,49,080 Net Capital Gain Rs.1,95,50,920

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SHARMA, DELHI

section 143(2) and 143(1) were issued and served on the\nassessee and the assessee was granted sufficient time to submit details. He\nhas further mentioned that additions in the assessment order were made\nafter taking into consideration the submissions being made by the appellant\nduring the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the AO in the remand\nreport stated that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SHARMA, DELHI

section 143(2) and 143(1) were issued and served on the\nassessee and the assessee was granted sufficient time to submit details. He\nhas further mentioned that additions in the assessment order were made\nafter taking into consideration the submissions being made by the appellant\nduring the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the AO in the remand\nreport stated that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SHARMA , DELHI

section 143(2) and 143(1) were issued and served on the\nassessee and the assessee was granted sufficient time to submit details. He\nhas further mentioned that additions in the assessment order were made\nafter taking into consideration the submissions being made by the appellant\nduring the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the AO in the remand\nreport stated that

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-30 , NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SHARMA, DELHI

section 143(2) and 143(1) were issued and served on the\nassessee and the assessee was granted sufficient time to submit details. He\nhas further mentioned that additions in the assessment order were made\nafter taking into consideration the submissions being made by the appellant\nduring the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the AO in the remand\nreport stated that

DCIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. RAJAN SHARMA, NEW DELHI

section 143(2) and 143(1) were issued and served on the\nassessee and the assessee was granted sufficient time to submit details. He\nhas further mentioned that additions in the assessment order were made\nafter taking into consideration the submissions being made by the appellant\nduring the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the AO in the remand\nreport stated that

MOHAN LAL JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-63(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

920/- declared by the appellant in the return of income. In the return of income appellant had claimed deduction u/s 54 of the act against the above declared income under the head Long Term Capital Gain and Ld. ACIT, Circle 63(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. AO) alleged in his order that the new property has not been purchased

RAGHUVIR SINGH ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

gains; and (iii) capital gains/loss on sale of property. 5. Statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee and assessment was completed on an assessed income of Rs. 19,14,920/- after making an addition of Rs. 17,60,500/-. 6. Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by provisions of section

SONY INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NATIOANAL E- ASSESMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

920 xi. Purchase of Samples TNMM OP/OR 15,735,124 xii. Reimbursement Paid by SID to its TNMM OP/OR 8,941,313 AEs xiii. Provision of advisory services TNMM OP/OC 21,349,094 xiv. Reimbursement received by SID Other NA 162,176,641 from its AEs Method XV. Receipt of Call Centre Services TNMM OP/OR 45,586,198 xvi. Receipt

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

gains on such reasonable basis as he may deem fit. Explanation - 43[For purposes of this sub-section, "market value", in relation to any goods or services, means- price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in (i) open market; or arm's length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F, where (ii) transfer of such goods