UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 7. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the ld. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi assumed u/s 263 of the 7 Uday Kumar Vaish Act. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the facts

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

delay in filing of appeals for both the years are hereby condoned and taken up for adjudication. 4. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the ld AO in not allowing the carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) arising

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

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

condonation of delay and the same and consequentially the appeal are dismissed.” 19 Page ITA No. 1036/Del/2024 6. We accordingly concluded that once the learned departmental authorities had not questioned and rejected the assessee's conversion of above asset from inventory/stock-in-trade to investment account in financial year 2016-17, its consequential capital gains

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

delay of 1726 days in filing the cross objection is condoned. CO No.118/Del/2024 6. During the hearing before us, the assessee reiterated the above fact of inadvertently offering the above capital gains

ARUNIMA ADCON SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

capital gains was declared/ He observed that statute did not reject or frown upon conversion of stock-in-trade into investment and the said conversion was permissible. Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15th June, 2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates that two portfolios one for stock- in-trade

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RADHARANI ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

capital gains was declared/ He observed that statute did not reject or frown upon conversion of stock-in-trade into investment and the said conversion was permissible. Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15th June, 2007 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates that two portfolios one for stock- in-trade

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.11,75,90,926/- by making

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.11,75,90,926/- by making

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

delay of 42 days in re-filing the appeals is condoned. The applications shall stand disposed of. ITA 168/2024 ITA 169/2024 1. The Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [„ITAT‟] dated 11 August 2023 and has proposed the following questions for our consideration:- “2.1 Whether Ld. ITAT has erred in not considering the observation made

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

Appeals are dismissed

delay of 42 days in re-filing the appeals is condoned. The applications shall stand disposed of. ITA 168/2024 ITA 169/2024 1. The Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [„ITAT‟] dated 11 August 2023 and has proposed the following questions for our consideration:- “2.1 Whether Ld. ITAT has erred in not considering the observation made

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

condonation of delay. But certainly same cannot be agitated by the assessee before us in cross objection. 22. Even otherwise if the argument of the learned authorised representative is accepted it will make the provisions of section 263, 264 of the income tax act redundant if the assessment is subject matter of appeal. Clearly the provisions of section

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

delay in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned. 6 Anil Bhardwaj Zambia 8. The Ground No. 1 is general in nature which requires no adjudication. 9. Ground No. 2 is regarding addition made on account of treating Rs. 20,10,008/- as short term capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING vs. PC JEWELLER LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation.... 2.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, by referring various to earlier decisions of Superior Courts and held the following principal must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay, (i) There should

SURAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

delay should be condoned and justice should be done. Therefore assessee is submitted that the previously mentioned grounds are permitted to be urged which have not been raised due to incorrect legal advice and documents. The learned authorised representative reiterated all these above arguments and pressed that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted. 9. The learned

SULTAN SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

delay should be condoned and justice should be done. Therefore assessee is submitted that the previously mentioned grounds are permitted to be urged which have not been raised due to incorrect legal advice and documents. The learned authorised representative reiterated all these above arguments and pressed that the additional ground raised by the assessee should be admitted. 9. The learned

UPMA SHUKLA PROPRIETOR TROUBLESHOOTERS,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs Upma Shukla Proprietor Troubleshooters, Ito Upma Shukla, House No. 731, Ward 2(2), Sector-9A, Gurgaon. Hsiidc Building, Pan No. Adzps1670E Vanijaya Nikunj, 5Th Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon. Appellant Respondent

capital gains arising from transfer of building. 2 2. We have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. Earlier appeal was dismissed for default which was restored by allowing Miscellaneous Application of the assessee. 3. The appeal is time barred by 50 days. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay

CHOWDRY ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 taken together as they relate to the Long Term capital gains