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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

carry forward of long term capital loss incurred on sale of listed securities holding that merely because the capital gain on sale of STT paid shares was exempt, for such reasons alone, the long term capital loss incurred on sale of STT paid shares cannot be disallowed

FORTUM SAR B.V.,NETHERLANDS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1) INT. TAXATION, DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2022-23

disallowance of carry forward of loss; - That before disallowing carry forward of loss no show cause notice was issued to the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

disallowance of the appellant's claim regarding set off and carried forward of long-term capital loss of Rs. 1,44,73,463 against

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NORTEL NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal raised by the ld AO are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishiaddl. Cit, Vs. Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd, Special Range-6, Room No. 352, C-27, Ground Floor, Cr Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi Near Garden Of Five Senses Westend Marg, Paryavaran Complex, New Delhi Pan: Aabcn1424B (Appellant) (Respondent)

carry forward and set off loss u/s 72 of the Act. Therefore, he made an addition/ disallowance of Rs. 69,18,94,858/- and assessed

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowances : “a. Denied set-off of brought forward losses of the A & S Division claimed by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 4,76,08,087/- and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 18,50,582/- on the ground that the business losses were not transferred to the Appellant under the scheme of demerger. Further, carry

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowances : “a. Denied set-off of brought forward losses of the A & S Division claimed by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 4,76,08,087/- and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 18,50,582/- on the ground that the business losses were not transferred to the Appellant under the scheme of demerger. Further, carry

ACIT CIRCLE 25-(1), DELHI vs. VALUE FIRST DIGITAL MEDIA PVT. LTD. , GURGAON HARYANA

In the result, ITA No. 3143/Del/2019 [A

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

disallowances : “a. Denied set-off of brought forward losses of the A & S Division claimed by the Appellant amounting to Rs. 4,76,08,087/- and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 18,50,582/- on the ground that the business losses were not transferred to the Appellant under the scheme of demerger. Further, carry

RRPR HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

disallowance of carry forward of long term capital loss claimed on the sale of shares in the revised return of Rs.206

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VIII vs. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OP. LTD.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

losses survives to be carried forward for the A.Y. 1993-94 and the re-assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 1993-94 are without any foundation and jurisdiction.” For the above mentioned reasons, the very foundation for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 becomes non-extent and hence it is held that the initiation of action u/s 147 read with section

TGE GAS ENGINEERING GMBH,GERMANY vs. DCIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Tge Gas Engineering Gmbh, Vs Dcit, Mildred-Scheel-Str., 1 D-53175 Circle-International Bonn, Germany, Germany. Taxation 3(1)(1), Pan-Aadct7387B Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Gangadhar Panda, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018- 19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), International Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 28.07.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

carried out directly by TGE with no involvement of PO. Ground No.2: Disallowance of claim of brought forward business loss

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BANSAL STEELS POWER LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4891/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 बनाम Dcit, Bansal Steels Power Ltd. Circle 4(1), Vs. 35, Jhandewalan, Motia Khan, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacg1010F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Co No.230/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4891/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Bansal Steels Power Ltd. Dcit, 35, Jhandewalan, Motia Khan, Vs. Circle 4(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacg1010F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

carry forward of losses. 2. Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the assessment order, we noticed that the AO while completing the assessment made disallowance

VISHNU KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 46(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2015-16 Vishnu Kumar Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, 3762/64, Chawri Bazar, Ward-46(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aarpk3173D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.05.2022 Order

forward business loss from earlier years against the profit from business and profession for AY 2015-16. The ld. DR submitted that the AO was right in disallowing set off of speculative business loss against the income for AY 2015-16 and in allowing set off of business loss to the extent carried

GOLDFIELD SALES AGENCIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

carry forward losses. Accordingly, he disallowed an amount of Rs.3,53,04,350/- as losses withdrawn by the assessee. ITA Nos.1774

GOLDFIELD SALES AGENCIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

carry forward losses. Accordingly, he disallowed an amount of Rs.3,53,04,350/- as losses withdrawn by the assessee. ITA Nos.1774

GOLDFIELD SALES AGENCIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

carry forward losses. Accordingly, he disallowed an amount of Rs.3,53,04,350/- as losses withdrawn by the assessee. ITA Nos.1774

GOLDFIELD SALES AGENCIES LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

carry forward losses. Accordingly, he disallowed an amount of Rs.3,53,04,350/- as losses withdrawn by the assessee. ITA Nos.1774

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUMI MOTHERSON INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING LTD.

Bench: We Reproduce The Exact Questions, Which Were Formulated While Admitting The Appeal, We

disallowance is sustained.” 11. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) in its impugned decision while overturning the opinion of the AO, has preferred to accept the contention of the assessee, ITA No. 863 of 2009 Page 10 of 14 holding the view that the expression “losses brought forward” would mean the losses which existed

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CORE AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui.T. Appeal Nos. 1590 & 1905/Del/2011 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Core Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Ward : 3 (4), Vs. 401–Padma Tower–Ii, New Delhi. 22, Rajendra Place, N E W D E L H I 110 008. Pan : Aaacc 2712 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

carry forward loss for assessment years 1996-97 & 1997-98; 18. In the identical case of HLA Trading and Agencies (P) Ltd, wherein, on absolutely identical reasons the loss was disallowed

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S CORE AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui.T. Appeal Nos. 1590 & 1905/Del/2011 Assessment Years : 1996-97 & 1997-98. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Core Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Ward : 3 (4), Vs. 401–Padma Tower–Ii, New Delhi. 22, Rajendra Place, N E W D E L H I 110 008. Pan : Aaacc 2712 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

carry forward loss for assessment years 1996-97 & 1997-98; 18. In the identical case of HLA Trading and Agencies (P) Ltd, wherein, on absolutely identical reasons the loss was disallowed