PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that might have been received for the transfer of the residential house which resulted in the capital gain. 23. At the cost

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

234,160 as against a returned income of INR 5,526,284,370. Part I - Transfer Pricing Matters 3. That on facts and in law, Hon'ble DRP and the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO erred in making an adjustment of INR 1,569,263,482 to returned income of the Appellant in respect of international transaction pertaining to contract software

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

property purchased one year prior to the transfer, which gave rise to the capital gain or may be in the alternative have expressly made the exemption in case of prior purchase, subject to purchase from any advance that might have been received for the transfer of the residential house which resulted in the capital gain. 23. At the cost

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. NIRANJAN KOIRALA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

section 54F are very clear. The original asset cannot be a residential house or a residential property. It hardly needs to be re-iterated that the law is long settled that in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There

BARMINCO INDIAN UNDERGROUND MINING SERVICES LLP,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2253/िद"ी/2010(िन.व. 2006-07) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-31(1), R. No. 1405, 14Th Floor, E-2 Block, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Civic Centre, Jln Marg, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi बनाम Vs. Niranjan Koirala, 27, Akbar Road, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaupk-0483-B Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Department By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19.08.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 18.02.2010, For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Decided By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 20.07.2018. Thereafter, The Revenue Filed Miscellaneous Application Seeking Rectification In The Order Of Tribunal On The Ground That The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Vide Application Dated 13.08.2014 Remained To Be Decided. The Tribunal In Ma No. 732/Del/2018 Vide Order Dated 10.07.2023 Recalled The Order

section 54F are very clear. The original asset cannot be a residential house or a residential property. It hardly needs to be re-iterated that the law is long settled that in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

property, from which income was generated was the trust property; the sale deed in favour of the assessee showed that he purchased the property as a trustee and there was a subsequent deed creating a trust which recorded a corpus of Rs. 2 lakhs left in the hands of the assessee. In this case it was held that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S TRISHUL COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

234 B of the Act, the CIT(A) held that the interest under Section 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act have been correctly charged for the three AYs in question. While confirming the above additions, the CIT(A) also affirmed disallowance of the sums paid by the Assessees on account of the State income tax. Impugned order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SWASTIK COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

234 B of the Act, the CIT(A) held that the interest under Section 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act have been correctly charged for the three AYs in question. While confirming the above additions, the CIT(A) also affirmed disallowance of the sums paid by the Assessees on account of the State income tax. Impugned order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI vs. M/S PASUPATI NATH COMMR. P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

234 B of the Act, the CIT(A) held that the interest under Section 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act have been correctly charged for the three AYs in question. While confirming the above additions, the CIT(A) also affirmed disallowance of the sums paid by the Assessees on account of the State income tax. Impugned order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SOVERIGN COMMERCIAL P. LTD

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

234 B of the Act, the CIT(A) held that the interest under Section 139(8) and 215/217 of the Act have been correctly charged for the three AYs in question. While confirming the above additions, the CIT(A) also affirmed disallowance of the sums paid by the Assessees on account of the State income tax. Impugned order

ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, NEW DELHI vs. MB POWER (MADHYA PRADESH) LTD, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 Acit, Vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Special Range-6, Ltd., New Delhi 239, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan :Aafcm6698A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Satyan Sethi, Adv. Sh. A.T. Panda, Adv. Department By Sh. B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.12.2024 Order

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. The Revenue raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in holding that interest income of Rs.7

VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property Rs.20,52,542/-, against income from other sources Rs.5,40,403/- and against STCG Rs.65,251/- thereby balance STCG of Rs.3,84,82,308/- will be set off against c/f loss under the same head of STCG (against applicable c/f STCG Rs.4,41,05,508/-) so that speculative loss is c/f. Similarly in AY 2016-17, after considering

VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

house property Rs.20,52,542/-, against income from other sources Rs.5,40,403/- and against STCG Rs.65,251/- thereby balance STCG of Rs.3,84,82,308/- will be set off against c/f loss under the same head of STCG (against applicable c/f STCG Rs.4,41,05,508/-) so that speculative loss is c/f. Similarly in AY 2016-17, after considering

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

house where is a small room allotted to Sh. Mishra the cashier wherein the cash belonging to my business concerns is kept. Q. 48 Do you want to say anything else ? Ans. No, nothing. Signed 26.11.99 I have read over the above statement and understood the same . I found that it has been correctly recorded. The above statement has been

KAVYA SAURABH RASTOGI,MORADABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarkavya Saurabh Rastogi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Vishwa Autar Jamani, Moradabad A-61, Lajpat Nagar, Moradbad, Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Pan: Aipr8080J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property despite producing the bank statements of the lenders and the assessee to substantiate the loan. 4. The AO is against the law and facts and circumstances of the case for making an addition in the business income of the assessee by applying the presumptive rate of net profit at the rate of 8 per cent of the turnover

AVICHAL KULSHRESTHA,LONDON vs. ITO WARD 35(7), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

house other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset. Property bearing flat no.Cl/0801, the Heartsong, Sector 10B Gurgaon, Haryana, India 122001 was acquired only on 21.12.2018. To avail the benefit u/s 54F of the I. T. Act, 1961, the property had to acquire till

BHAGVAT SINGH,KHURJA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), BULANDSHAHR

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmabhagvat Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Jai Kisha, Adv, 86, Ward-1(3), Nai Basti, Khurja, Aligarh Bulandshahr (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dbwps8579E

234/- made towards the long term capital gain, since the land sold was an agricultural land and the same does not fall within the definition of capital asset u/s 2(14) of the I. T. Act, 1961, at the time of the agreement to sell dated 02.07.2008. The use of land sold was changed and treated as industrial land

HANSRAJ ,REWARI vs. ITO WARD 1(4), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Ita No:- 4978/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Hansraj, Income Tax Officer, C-75, Ground Floor, Ward-1(4), M2K County, Dharuhera Vs Gurugram, Rewari, Haryana-123106. Haryana-122001. Pan- Aazph7436E Assessee Revenue

property during F.Y.2013-14 relevant to Α.Υ.2014- 15. TDS-194D TDS-return-Insurance Commission (Section Rs. 41,234/-194D) TDS- 1941(b) Rent Received (TDS Form 26Q, Section Rs. 6,66,672/- 194I(b) AIR-001 Cash Deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- or more in a Rs. 1,01,50,000/- saving bank account 2.2 In view