PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

property in question) and the enforcement authority (the State). Since the second of the above species of "proceeds of crime" uses the expression "such property", the qualifying word being "such", it is vivid that the "property" referred to here is equivalent to the one indicated by the first kind. The only difference is that it is not the same property

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property Rs. 22,33,67,403/- 5. Disallowance out of Aircraft and Helicopter expenses Rs. 3,17,34,000/- 5. Besides the AO while computing the total income at page 50 of its order inadvertently taken the loss at Rs. 55,32,91,87,098/- as against the correct returned loss of Rs. 55,33,78,55,356/-, thereby

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property Rs. 22,33,67,403/- 5. Disallowance out of Aircraft and Helicopter expenses Rs. 3,17,34,000/- 5. Besides the AO while computing the total income at page 50 of its order inadvertently taken the loss at Rs. 55,32,91,87,098/- as against the correct returned loss of Rs. 55,33,78,55,356/-, thereby

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property Rs. 22,33,67,403/- 5. Disallowance out of Aircraft and Helicopter expenses Rs. 3,17,34,000/- 5. Besides the AO while computing the total income at page 50 of its order inadvertently taken the loss at Rs. 55,32,91,87,098/- as against the correct returned loss of Rs. 55,33,78,55,356/-, thereby

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property Rs. 22,33,67,403/- 5. Disallowance out of Aircraft and Helicopter expenses Rs. 3,17,34,000/- 5. Besides the AO while computing the total income at page 50 of its order inadvertently taken the loss at Rs. 55,32,91,87,098/- as against the correct returned loss of Rs. 55,33,78,55,356/-, thereby

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

house property Rs. 22,33,67,403/- 5. Disallowance out of Aircraft and Helicopter expenses Rs. 3,17,34,000/- 5. Besides the AO while computing the total income at page 50 of its order inadvertently taken the loss at Rs. 55,32,91,87,098/- as against the correct returned loss of Rs. 55,33,78,55,356/-, thereby

MRS. RASHMI DHARIWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 11 and 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirashmi Dhariwal, Vs. Acit, Aashray Farms, Sub Po, Circle-23(1), Sawan Public School, Bhatti New Delhi Mines, Asola Village, New Delhi Pan:Aappd9702P (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and there could not have been any further additions. 16. Since the provisions of fixation of annual rent under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act are pari materia of section 23 of the Act, we are inclined to accept the aforesaid view of the Calcutta High Court in Satya Co. Ltd.‟s case (supra) that in such circumstances

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AACCK4937D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. DEEPTI AGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Deepti Agarwal, Circle-31(1), Room No. 1405, Prop M/S. Superior Fabrics, 14Th Floor, E-2, Block, Maharaja Lane, Civil Lines, Prataykshkar Bhawan, Dr. New Delhi Shyama Prasad, Mukherjee Civc Pan: Aampa0573C Centre, Jn Nehru Marg, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3) invoked by the AO for rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing deduction to the assessee u/s 80IC to the tune of Rs. 4,67,93,495/- for her Dehradun Unit whereas the assessee had not fulfilled all the conditions required for claiming deduction u/s 80IC

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

2. The present appeals under Section 260A of the Act are directed against an order dated 9th April 2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 4181/Del/98 and 5100/Del/98 for AY 1994-95. While ITA No. 145 of 2001 is by the Revenue, ITA No. 180 of 2001 is by the Assessee, INC, a political party registered

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

2. The present appeals under Section 260A of the Act are directed against an order dated 9th April 2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 4181/Del/98 and 5100/Del/98 for AY 1994-95. While ITA No. 145 of 2001 is by the Revenue, ITA No. 180 of 2001 is by the Assessee, INC, a political party registered

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

2. The present appeals under Section 260A of the Act are directed against an order dated 9th April 2001 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA Nos. 4181/Del/98 and 5100/Del/98 for AY 1994-95. While ITA No. 145 of 2001 is by the Revenue, ITA No. 180 of 2001 is by the Assessee, INC, a political party registered

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

145 (Born.) may be referred to. In the case of CIT v . Virmani Industries (P) Ltd. [1995] 129 CTR (SC) 189/216 ITR 607 (SC) the Apex Court has observed that to avail of the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 32 two views are possible in his behalf i.e. (1) since sub-section speaks of unabsorbed depreciation on being

MS. SAI ASTHA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

145 (Born.) may be referred to. In the case of CIT v . Virmani Industries (P) Ltd. [1995] 129 CTR (SC) 189/216 ITR 607 (SC) the Apex Court has observed that to avail of the benefit of sub-section (2) of section 32 two views are possible in his behalf i.e. (1) since sub-section speaks of unabsorbed depreciation on being

JAN ABHIVYAKTI SAMAJIK VIKAS SANSTHA,RAIPUR vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2024-25] Jan Abhivyankti Samajik Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vikas Sanstha, Lig-1361, (Central)-2, Room No.341, E-2, Sector-8, Housing Board Vs 2Nd Floor, Ara Centre, Colony, Saddu Mova, Raipur- Jhandewalan Extension, 492001 (C.G.) New Delhi-110055 Pan:Aabaj7197B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Housing Board Vs 2nd Floor, ARA Centre, Colony, Saddu Mova, Raipur- Jhandewalan Extension, 492001 (C.G.) New Delhi-110055 PAN:AABAJ7197B Appellant Respondent Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue by Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 18.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 21.01.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, The captioned appeal has been preferred

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

THE KUMAR FAMILY TRUST,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 are unabated and assessments are set aside due to no incriminating material found during the search and the appeals for the said assessment years are...

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember

2 of AY 2013-14 6b AYs 2017-18 to 2019-20 (Addition u/s 23 in relation to properties at Goa) The appellant is a private discretionary trust settled by Mrs. Ritu 4.1 Kumar 8b Mr. Shashi Kumar in favour of their sons, Mr. Ashvin Kumar and Mr. Amrish Kumar, who are the principal beneficiaries of the Trust. Clause