ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI vs. GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSET LTD., GURGAON

In the result, both captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) could\nnot be made as the interest was paid wholly and exclusively for the purpose of\nbusiness under commercial expediency and for this, he placed reliance on the\njudgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders (supra) and\nHero Cycle (P) Ltd. vs CIT (Central

LENIENT CONSULTANTS PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed\nas indicated above

256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also\nrelied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\nKunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and\nKhoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane\nLtd. - [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC).\n19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of\nSpacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

SECTION 45, READ WITH SECTION 28(i), OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS, CHARGEABLE AS - ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF SURPLUS ON SALE OF SHARES AND SECURITIES - CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income

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

256 ITR 1 confirmed by SC in 320\nITR 561\n• CIT vsVinitecCorpn. (P) Ltd.: 278 ITR 337 (Delhi)\nHe further submitted that the appeals filed by the department, inter-alia, on this issue\nbefore the Delhi High Court for AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 have not been\nadmitted. Accordingly, he pleaded to allow these grounds

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

256 ITR 683 (Madras); and Commissioner of Income tax vs Ajaib Singh and Co (2002) 253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial question of law is framed and admitted

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

256 ITR 683 (Madras); and Commissioner of Income tax vs Ajaib Singh and Co (2002) 253 ITR 630 (Punjab and Haryana High Court). Further, in any case, it is well settled that that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied in a case where a substantial question of law is framed and admitted

DHEERAJ CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra

VANSHIKA MOTORS (P) LTD.,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2, MEERUT

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KHEMKA STUART LEISURE LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

disallowed deduction under section 80IA of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.3,88,42,025/-. We find on appeal filed by the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 17.01.2013 allowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA and on appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal vide ITA.No.1920/Del./2013

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

Appeals are dismissed

disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee of section 54 of IT Act, 1961? 2.2 Whether Ld. ITAT has also erred in considering the subsequent part payment of loan taken from ICICI for purpose of the said residential house, paid during the previous year, as allowable for exemption u/s 54, even though the loan amount is applied for much earlier

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

1 (Delhi)- wherein it was held that Dumb documents seized, i.e., from which nothing could be clearly understood, cannot form a justified base for making additions to income of the assessee. Decision of the hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Sharad Choudhary [2014] 165 TTJ 145 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein it has been held that “a charge

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

1 (Delhi)- wherein it was held that Dumb documents seized, i.e., from which nothing could be clearly understood, cannot form a justified base for making additions to income of the assessee. Decision of the hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Sharad Choudhary [2014] 165 TTJ 145 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein it has been held that “a charge

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

1 (Delhi)- wherein it was held that Dumb documents seized, i.e., from which nothing could be clearly understood, cannot form a justified base for making additions to income of the assessee. Decision of the hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Sharad Choudhary [2014] 165 TTJ 145 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein it has been held that “a charge

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

1 (Delhi)- wherein it was held that Dumb documents seized, i.e., from which nothing could be clearly understood, cannot form a justified base for making additions to income of the assessee. Decision of the hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Sharad Choudhary [2014] 165 TTJ 145 (Delhi-Trib.) wherein it has been held that “a charge

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. DEEPA TALWAR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, DELHI vs. YASMIN KAPOOR, DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanacit, Vs. Deepa Talwar, Central Circle-19, 6/14, Shanti Niketan, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaupt4464F

256 ITR 1(Delhi). She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Vs. State of Kerala – [2000] 245 ITR 360(SC) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. Vs. MahadeshwaraSahakaraSakkareKarkhane Ltd. – [2019] 104 taxmann.com 25(SC). 19. I noted that the case law cited by the learned CIT-DR of Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. (supra