CIT vs. FRANCIS WACZIARG

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) dated 23rd April, 2010, relating to the assessment year 2003-04 in the case of Francis Wacziarg, was taken up for hearing and disposal. 2011:DHC:5631-DB ITA 338/2011 Page 2 of 17 2. As several

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) dated 23rd April, 2010, relating to the assessment year 2003-04 in the case of Francis Wacziarg, was taken up for hearing and disposal. 2011:DHC:5631-DB ITA 338/2011 Page 2 of 17 2. As several

CIT vs. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA

property was purchased jointly with his wife. The assessee vide reply dated 15.12.2009 submitted that wife‟s name was only included in the sale deed just to avoid any litigation after his death though all the funds invested in the said house were provided by the assessee himself as was clear and evident from the Bank Statement. The assessee, therefore

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

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 as such under Section

OCEAN STRUCTURES (P) LTD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

The appeal is dismissed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the `Act') is directed against the Order dated 29.9.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the `Tribunal') in ITA No. 2847/Del/2002 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000. The Tribunal reversed the Order dated 15.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [the `CIT(A)'] and held that the income earned

RAJNI KUMAR WIFE OF SHRI BRIG. NARENDER KUMAR H.NO.394, SECTOR-21, GURGAONN,GURGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarrajni Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (1), W/O Shri Brig. Narender Kumar, Gurgaon. House No.394, Sector 21, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Ayypk1781A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.09.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 & The Assessment Order Was Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’).

property there was a civil suit filed by the other parties and the assessee could not complete the construction and the licence for constructing the house was accordingly delayed. The learned Tribunal further noted that CIT (A) in his order relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s Sadarmal Kothani

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. LATA GOEL

Bench: The Learned

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] impugning an order dated 25.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12. 2. The impugned order is a common order passed by the learned ITAT in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 and ITA No.5892/Del/2015. However, as stated above, the present appeal

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short). The relevant assessment years are 1992- 93 to 1994-95, 2001-02 and 2005-06 to 2007-08. In all the appeals except the appeal in ITA No.722/2007, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: - "(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short). The relevant assessment years are 1992- 93 to 1994-95, 2001-02 and 2005-06 to 2007-08. In all the appeals except the appeal in ITA No.722/2007, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: - "(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act', for short). The relevant assessment years are 1992- 93 to 1994-95, 2001-02 and 2005-06 to 2007-08. In all the appeals except the appeal in ITA No.722/2007, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: - "(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

houses to Kedarnath Gupta. It is, therefore, not a relevant consideration that there was no admission by the seller of the property that he received on-monies from the buyer. The non-seizure of any substantial amount of cash during the search is also not relevant in the case of the buyer of the property. He has actually parted with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short). The relevant assessment years are 1992- 93 to 1994-95, 2001-02 and 2005-06 to 2007-08. In all the appeals except the appeal in ITA No.722/2007, the following substantial questions of law have been framed: - “(a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) by the Assessee and the Revenue against the impugned common order dated 28th September 2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA No. 892/Del/99 for Assessment Year 1994-95. Questions of law 2. On 25th November 2002 while admitting the appeals, the following questions of law were framed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SARDAR EXHIBITORS P. LTD.

Section 260A have been filed by the Revenue and relate to assessment years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 in the case of Sardar Exhibitors Pvt. Ltd., respondent herein. 2. The following identical substantial question of law arises for consideration and is being answered : “Whether the ITAT, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was right in upholding

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEERA CHATTERJEE

260A of the Income Tax 2011:DHC:5667-DB ITA No. 341/2003 Page 2 of 15 Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) relates to assessment year 1993- 94 and the respondent is an individual. She had received Rs.1 crore on account of surrender of tenancy rights in property No. 15, Motilal Nehru Marg from M/s Bennet Coleman and Company Limited

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEERA CHATTERJEE

260A of the Income Tax 2011:DHC:5667-DB ITA No. 341/2003 Page 2 of 15 Act, 1961 (the Act, for short) relates to assessment year 1993- 94 and the respondent is an individual. She had received Rs.1 crore on account of surrender of tenancy rights in property No. 15, Motilal Nehru Marg from M/s Bennet Coleman and Company Limited