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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

methods and subterfuges and that the Assessee could not seek to take shelter behind a draft agreement not recognised by law. 25. Mr. Singh submitted that there was no answer to the Revenue‟s contention that the residual value of the plant and machinery after termination of the lease would be negligible and this when seen in light

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

methods and subterfuges and that the Assessee could not seek to take shelter behind a draft agreement not recognised by law. 25. Mr. Singh submitted that there was no answer to the Revenue‟s contention that the residual value of the plant and machinery after termination of the lease would be negligible and this when seen in light

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

methods and subterfuges and that the Assessee could not seek to take shelter behind a draft agreement not recognised by law. 25. Mr. Singh submitted that there was no answer to the Revenue‟s contention that the residual value of the plant and machinery after termination of the lease would be negligible and this when seen in light

TELENOR (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 25(1), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

TP Act. Accordingly, the capital gains cannot be computed and taxable in the year under consideration. The final taxability of gain or loss, if any, could be considered in the year in which all the claims and counter claims are settled by the DoT and not in the piecemeal manner. 25. With respect to the last contention that there

SAC FINANCE COMANY LTD,HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

TP analysis. In view of the above, the assessee's objections in this regard are not tenable. However, the AO shall verify the claim of the assessee that the entire value of Wormhole Singapore is not relatable to its investments in Orbgen India and accordingly such value relating to other investments shall be excluded in the determination of full value

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

TP study report stating that : `NYLI shall assign personnel to perform the Services who are qualified by training and experience to perform the same’. He held that the assignment of personnel for short periods was not equivalent to providing consultancy work. The TPO rejected the CUP method and instead, treated the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Gyan Prakash Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(4), B-189, Yojna Vihar, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi – 92 (Pan: Adupg2697N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

tp astronomical height only to create the artificial transaction in the form of capital gain. Surrounding circumstances differ from the normal shore market transactions in which they are ordinarily carried out. Taking all the steps together, final conclusion does not accord with the human probabilities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More held

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges”. 8.1 In the instant case also, a colourable device has been created to camouflage the credit of the amount to Indiabulls Power Ltd. (now RattanIndia Power Ltd.) as a capital receipt to avoid the test of section 68 of the Income

ECOENERGY INSIGHTS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS CHUBB ALBA CONTROL SYSTEMS P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

capital adopted by the valuer while completing 27 the valuation of the specified assets. We observe that assessee has valued the specified assets while acquiring the assets in the previous assessment year and the acquisition of the business was completed with Board Resolution and also acquiring valuation from a third party expert, the same was adopted in their books

HERO MOTO CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

method of creating the aforesaid provision. 6.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in adding back the provision for advertisement expenses incurred at head office, aggregating to Rs.8,92,49,490 (inadvertently Rs.2,89,94,000 has been added), while computing „book profit‟ under section 115 JB of the Act holding the same

DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. L&T SUCG JV CC27, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

gain on transaction of foreign currency liability in respect of capital asset at the year end, which would not be income of the assessee, therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee of this nature. We, accordingly, set aside the 80 ITA.No.4351 & 4457/Del./2018 L & T SUCG JV CC 27, New Delhi. Orders of the authorities below

L&T SUCG JV CC27,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-62, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

gain on transaction of foreign currency liability in respect of capital asset at the year end, which would not be income of the assessee, therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee of this nature. We, accordingly, set aside the 80 ITA.No.4351 & 4457/Del./2018 L & T SUCG JV CC 27, New Delhi. Orders of the authorities below

ARIVENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

method adopted by the assessee for valuing its shares on the date of sale suffers from ambiguity. The question which arises before us is whether the Assessing Officer while computing the income from 50 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 capital gains on transfer of capital assets has the power not to accept the full value of consideration received

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

method adopted by the assessee for valuing its shares on the date of sale suffers from ambiguity. The question which arises before us is whether the Assessing Officer while computing the income from 50 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 capital gains on transfer of capital assets has the power not to accept the full value of consideration received

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 1 , NEW DELHI vs. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

method adopted by the assessee for valuing its shares on the date of sale suffers from ambiguity. The question which arises before us is whether the Assessing Officer while computing the income from 50 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 capital gains on transfer of capital assets has the power not to accept the full value of consideration received

M/S. ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

method adopted by the assessee for valuing its shares on the date of sale suffers from ambiguity. The question which arises before us is whether the Assessing Officer while computing the income from 50 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 capital gains on transfer of capital assets has the power not to accept the full value of consideration received

ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES (HOLDINGS) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 3(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

method adopted by the assessee for valuing its shares on the date of sale suffers from ambiguity. The question which arises before us is whether the Assessing Officer while computing the income from 50 ITA Nos.1308/Del/2015; 4913 & 5026/Del/2018; 7637/Del/2018; 7112 & 1944/Del/2017 capital gains on transfer of capital assets has the power not to accept the full value of consideration received