LATE SMT. GIRIRAJ KAUR L/H SRI RAVINDER GILL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 55A and the valuation report is not applicable for the year 2009- 10 due to retevant time provision which are amended subsequently from 01.07.2012. 3. That the claim of Narendra Kumar Gill (assessee of ITO, Ward 2(1) on the basis of valuation report of Govt. Approved Valuer can not be disallowed

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.,HISAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 92(4) of the Act). 137. The question of aggregation and disaggregation of transactions when the TNM Method or even in other methods is sought to be applied, must have reference to the strength and weaknesses of the TNM Method or the applicable method. Aggregation of transactions is desirable and not merely permissible, if the nature of transaction

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JSL LTD.,, HISAR

Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal of the learned AO for 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 92(4) of the Act). 137. The question of aggregation and disaggregation of transactions when the TNM Method or even in other methods is sought to be applied, must have reference to the strength and weaknesses of the TNM Method or the applicable method. Aggregation of transactions is desirable and not merely permissible, if the nature of transaction

MANOJ MITTAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

55A read with section 50C(2) of the Act. But no report had been received from the DVO within the time sought for. Hence the provision of section 50C of the Act is being invoked in case of the assessee and the value as per stamp duty authority is being adopted as the full value of consideration received

M/S. NINE DOT NINE MEDIAWORX PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 M/S Nine Dot Nine Mediaworx Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, N-154, Panchsheel Park, Ward 13(3), New Delhi-110017 New Delhi. (Pan: Aafcm1910P) Ay: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Nine Dot Nine Mediaworx Pvt. Ltd., Ward 18(3), New Delhi-110017 C.R. Building, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Assessee By: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Goel, Ca

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, it is seen that the Assessing Officer in his remand report has himself accepted that in view of the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements between India and US and India and India and UAE, the payment to Mr. Renee Mauborgne amounting

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NINE DOT NINE MEDIAWORX(P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 M/S Nine Dot Nine Mediaworx Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, N-154, Panchsheel Park, Ward 13(3), New Delhi-110017 New Delhi. (Pan: Aafcm1910P) Ay: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Nine Dot Nine Mediaworx Pvt. Ltd., Ward 18(3), New Delhi-110017 C.R. Building, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Assessee By: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Goel, Ca

section 40(a)(i) of the Act, it is seen that the Assessing Officer in his remand report has himself accepted that in view of the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements between India and US and India and India and UAE, the payment to Mr. Renee Mauborgne amounting

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

55A may be considered by the Assessing Officer as a piece of evidence if it is relevant. (See CIT v. East Commercial Co. Ltd. : 1967 LXIII ITR 449, 457). However, the power of inquiry granted to an Assessing Officer under Sections 133(6) and 142(2) does not include the power to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer

CIT vs. AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

55A may be considered by the Assessing Officer as a piece of evidence if it is relevant. (See CIT v. East Commercial Co. Ltd. : 1967 LXIII ITR 449, 457). However, the power of inquiry granted to an Assessing Officer under Sections 133(6) and 142(2) does not include the power to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer

SATYA DHARMA HOTELS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 22(4), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Satya Dharma Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Ito, Ward-22(4), New Delhi 110002 177, 1St Floor, Vigyan Vihar, New Delhi 110092 Vs. Pan Aahcs 0289 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.C Yadav, Adv. Shri Shivam Garg, Ca Shri Raghav Sharma, Ca Revenue For : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Dated 01.03.2019 For Ay 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Assessee Are As Follows:- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed By Cit (A)-08, New Delhi Is Contrary To The Facts & Bad In Law. 2. I) I Am Not Agreeing With The Computation Of Capital Gain Made By Assessing Officer. Ii) During The Assessment, Sec 55A Of Income Tax Act Has Not Been Considered By Assessing Officer For Valuation Of The Land As Requested By Us. Taking Rate Of Registering Authority & Not Consider The Fair Market Value Which Is Very Low. Iii)The Ld. Ao Has Not Considered The Addition Made During The Year & Added Back In The Income Of The Assessee Company. 4. Demand Calculated By A.O. Is Prejudicial To The Company And, If Appeal Is Not Allowed To Be Proceeded It Amounting To Against The Law.

section 55A of Income Tax Act. 6. The disallowance of addition in land of Rs. 2935000 is not tenable and not justified

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. K.S. CHAWLA & SONGS (HUF), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

55A of the Act which was received after the completion of reassessment proceedings, which is highly arbitrary, unjustified and bad in law. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in confirming the act of the Ld. Assessing Officer to convert the reassessment proceedings made on 3 ITA. 2724 /Del/2015 AND C.O. 456/Del/2015 protective

RAJASTHAN CLUB,,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 Vs. Adit(E), Inv. Circle-Ii, New Rajasthan Club, Dp-22, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaatr6043G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Gautam Jain & P.K. Kamal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 22/03/2010 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2002-03 Raising Following Grounds: “ 1. The Appellant, Rajasthan Club Is Engaged In Charitable Activity During The Financial Year 2001-02. The Appellant Is A Regular Income Tax Assessee & Assessed To Income Tax For The Last Several Years. All Income, Assets & Investments Are Disclosed To Income Tax Department In Regular Income Tax Returns. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Incorrect & Unjustified In Making A Reference Of The Property In This Case To The Valuation Officer Without Any Reason Basis & Evidence.

disallowance of Rs. 75000/- on account of seminar and conference without any reason basis and evidence. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax 3 AY: 2002-03 (Appeal) erred in holding that treating the amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- as income which

JITINDER SINGH CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

Section 263 of the Act as on 01.04.2013 provides that the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act but not the Pr. CIT as the powers to Pr. CIT had been given with retrospective effect from 01.06.2013 whereas the case of the assessee was for the assessment year

MRS. SURREN CHANANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed and

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2009-10 Mrs. Surren Chanana, Income Tax Officer, L-1/11, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs. Ward 24(1), New Delhi New Delhi

disallowance of Rs. 61,97,460/- on account of setting off of long term capital loss against long term capital gain on sale of property at Hauz Khas on its transfer. 10.1 On this issue, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contents of the grounds of appeal. 10.2 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SURREN CHANANA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed and

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2009-10 Mrs. Surren Chanana, Income Tax Officer, L-1/11, Hauz Khas Enclave, Vs. Ward 24(1), New Delhi New Delhi

disallowance of Rs. 61,97,460/- on account of setting off of long term capital loss against long term capital gain on sale of property at Hauz Khas on its transfer. 10.1 On this issue, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contents of the grounds of appeal. 10.2 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel

CAIRN INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12] & [A.Y 2012-13] Cairn India Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T, Dlf Atria Building, Circle-1(1), Jacaranda Marg, N Block, Gurgaon. Dlf City Phase Ii, Gurgaon. [Pan: Aaccc 8799D] [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv

disallowance of the brand fee/ royalty payment while determining the ALP. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 14. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court [supra] is directly on the point of dispute

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowed entire deduction after considering the legal issues only. Section 80IA(8) provides for adjustment in the profit if the value of the goods or services 146 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 does not correspondent to the market value of such goods or services on the date of such transaction. The assessee objected the applicability of S. 80IA

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

disallowance of the benefit of indexation. 2.3 That the leasehold right in the land having been acquired by the Appellant upon the date of allotment in terms of section 2(47), the period of holding of such right should be considered from the date of allotment. 2.4 That the Appellant had paid the entire cost in Financial Year

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

disallowed: Provided further that an intimation shall be sent to the Assessee whether or not any adjustment has been made under the first proviso and notwithstanding that no tax or interest is due from him: Provided also that an intimation under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

disallowed: Provided further that an intimation shall be sent to the Assessee whether or not any adjustment has been made under the first proviso and notwithstanding that no tax or interest is due from him: Provided also that an intimation under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year