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

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

short). The respondent-assessee had claimed before the Assessing Officer that they were maintaining two sets of portfolio, i.e., investment and trading portfolio and the shares, which were sold and subject-matter of long-term capital gains, were held in the investment portfolio. This factual position was not disputed.” Held . “6. The commissioner [Appeals] has observed that in the balance

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

short). The respondent-assessee had claimed before the Assessing Officer that they were maintaining two sets of portfolio, i.e., investment and trading portfolio and the shares, which were sold and subject-matter of long-term capital gains, were held in the investment portfolio. This factual position was not disputed.” Held . “6. The commissioner [Appeals] has observed that in the balance

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is being decided on merit. Disallowance of claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4. The Ld. AO, holding that the assessee has failed to demonstrate that the said share on whose transfer the LTCG derived were equity share and units of mutual fund were of equity

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is being decided on merit. Disallowance of claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 4. The Ld. AO, holding that the assessee has failed to demonstrate that the said share on whose transfer the LTCG derived were equity share and units of mutual fund were of equity

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

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

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 and submitted that the AO is obligated to assess the correct income relying upon Board Circular No.14 XL-35, dated 11.04.1955. It was further submitted that tax collection

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

short). The respondent-assessee had claimed\nbefore the Assessing Officer that they were maintaining two sets of\nportfolio, i.e., investment and trading portfolio and the shares, which\nwere sold and subject matter of long-term capital gains, were held in\nthe investment portfolio. This factual position was not disputed.\n\n3. The Assessing Officer has recorded that

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

short term 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 treated as business income. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a corporate resident Non Banking Finance Company and has declared an income

M/S ARCHI MEDES INDIA CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stand allowed for

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

short term capital gains on sale of property as done by Ld. AO and that too by recording incorrect facts. 3. That the assessee craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 3. AT the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that there

CIT vs. EAGLE THEATRES

delay is condoned. Accordingly the application is allowed. The application stands disposed of. ITA No. 1287/2011 2011:DHC:6578-DB The Revenue by the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugns order dated 31st January, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) on three grounds. (i) Reduction

ITA 1287/2011 vs. EAGLE THEATRES

delay is condoned. Accordingly the application is allowed. The application stands disposed of. ITA No. 1287/2011 2011:DHC:6578-DB The Revenue by the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) impugns order dated 31st January, 2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) on three grounds. (i) Reduction

SH. ALOK SWARUP,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of different assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Alok Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9949J Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5928/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Anil Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9948K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Dr

short ‘the Act’). 2. Both appeals relating to connected assessees were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. In both the appeals one common issue has been raised, i.e. against the computation of Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee and second is against the addition made

SH. ANIL SWARUP,MEERUT vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, both appeals of different assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Am [Through Video Conferencing] आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2919/Del/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Alok Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9949J Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.5928/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Sh. Anil Swarup, C/O-M/S Malik & Co.(Adv.) 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut City, .............अपीलाथ"/Appellant Uttar Pradesh Pan-Awops9948K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar …………. ""यथ" / Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv. Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Dr

short ‘the Act’). 2. Both appeals relating to connected assessees were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. In both the appeals one common issue has been raised, i.e. against the computation of Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee and second is against the addition made

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. M/S CARAF BUILDERS & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

condonation of 36 days delay in re- filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee has appeared on advance notice and does not oppose the application. The application is accordingly allowed. ITA 1260/2018 This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟) in the case of M/s. Caraf Builders