THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

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

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. AGGARWAL PLASTO CHEM PVT.LTD.

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

house at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, purchased and acquired by Smt Alka Rajvansh W/o Shri Homi Rajvansh, in the name of her company M/s Mahanivesh Oil and Foods Pvt Ltd, against the consideration value of ₹ 1,35,00,000/- excluding stamp duty and Corpn. tax of ₹ 10,80,000/- is the Proceeds of Crime, which is likely to be concealed

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

house property, were relied: • Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT: 44 ITR 362 (SC) • CIT vs. Velankani Information Systems (P.) Ltd.: 265 CTR 250 (Kar) • CIT vs. Mohiddin Hotels P. Ltd. & Ors.: 284 ITR 229 (Bom) • CIT vs. Goel Brothers: 331 ITR 344 (All) • PCIT vs. M/s Krome Planet Interiors

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

83] to support his contention. On the issue of the assessment order being cryptic, small, not discussing the issues in details, he submitted that the decision of the assessing officer could not be prejudicial or erroneous for the only reason that assessing officer has not made any elaborate discussion in his order. He submitted that such discussion can only

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

SELECT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

2)/ (3) of section 14A of the Act were not satisfied in as much as the assessing officer did not record any satisfaction as to the incorrectness of the amount of suo- moto disallowance made by the appellant in the return of income. 2.3 Without prejudice that the Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) erred on facts

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

property and continues to be in the possession of the trust. In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully submitted that the assessing officer/CIT(A) completely failed to appreciate the nature and purpose of donation received by the assessee for “Vanprasth Ashram” and grossly erred in alleging the donation received as towards providing services to contributors and held the same

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

SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

83,320/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,45,27,554/- wherein the assessing officer made an addition of Rs.62,59,639/- on account of development rights, Rs.2,30,88,128/- as disallowance of expenses and Rs.47,08,000/-under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag

SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

83,320/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,45,27,554/- wherein the assessing officer made an addition of Rs.62,59,639/- on account of development rights, Rs.2,30,88,128/- as disallowance of expenses and Rs.47,08,000/-under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

83,320/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,45,27,554/- wherein the assessing officer made an addition of Rs.62,59,639/- on account of development rights, Rs.2,30,88,128/- as disallowance of expenses and Rs.47,08,000/-under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag

PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

83,320/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,45,27,554/- wherein the assessing officer made an addition of Rs.62,59,639/- on account of development rights, Rs.2,30,88,128/- as disallowance of expenses and Rs.47,08,000/-under section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag

RAJEEV VASUDEVA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1) , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the action of the learned AO in denying the claim of exemption under section 54F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

2 | P a g e exemption under section 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.3,83,55,102/- and remaining amount of Rs.2,58,11,318/- was duly declared as long-term capital gain by the assessee in the return of income. Apart from this, the assessee had declared income from salary, income from house property

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

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

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

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

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

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

house property, which is reflected in its returns. That apart, Section 56 (1) of the Act makes it clear that even if there was no income under clauses A to E of Section 14 of the Act, there could be income from other sources under clause F of Section 14 of the Act. 83. Mr Singh is right

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. MAHAVEER TRANSMISSION LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the all appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

83,259 - - Overseas xi. M/s. Royal Traders - 5,46,17,922 - - xii. M/s. Dev Infocom - 36,20,77,917 81,21,89,115 - ITA Nos. 2844 to 2846/Del/2022 Mahavir Transmission Ltd. (P) Ltd. xiii. M/s. At Your Door - 2,13,75,600 - - Step Services (P) Ltd. xiv. M/s. Rudrani Multi - 2,13,75,600 - - Trade