R.C. NIRULA & SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshr.C. Nirula & Sons Huf, Vs. Asst. Commissioner A-2, Anand Niketan, Of Income Tax, New Delhi Circle-52(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaahr6050F Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Praveen Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2024

reassessment order in AY 2008-09, Ld. AO assessed the STCG at Rs.52,80,000/-. The Ld. AO held that, since subject matter of transfer is booking rights and not immovable property, therefore provisions of section 2(47)(v

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

V, (2011) 10 Taxman.com 227 (Delhi). In this writ petition, order of transfer under Section 127 was challenged. It was observed that the reasons given by the authority should be cogent and germane having nexus to the facts. 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 40 of 61 Noticing that facts relied by the Revenue were absent

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

V, (2011) 10 Taxman.com 227 (Delhi). In this writ petition, order of transfer under Section 127 was challenged. It was observed that the reasons given by the authority should be cogent and germane having nexus to the facts. 2014:DHC:1423-DB ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 40 of 61 Noticing that facts relied by the Revenue were absent

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. HALLIBURTON OFFSHORE SERVICES INC., DEHRADUN

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit, Halliburton Offshore Services International Taxation, Inc. , Vs. 13-A,Subhash Road, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Aayakar Bhawan, 75/7, Rajpur Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Addl. Cit, Inc. , International Taxation, Vs. C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, Subhash Road, Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, Dehradun New Delhi Pan:Aaach5154M (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. , Adit, C/O. Nangia & Company, Ca, International Taxation, Vs. Suite-4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, 13-A,Subhash Road, New Delhi Aayakar Bhawan, Pan:Aaach5154M Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. Vs Ddit (International Taxation)

2). It is not in dispute that the amount has been received by the assessee-company. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the said amount which was received by the non-resident company rendering services as per provisions of section 44BB to the ONGC and imposed the income-tax thereon. 7. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above, we set aside

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(47) of the Act. (e). The Delhi High Court in the case of Simka Hotels & Resorts vs. DCIT: (2013) 213 Taxman 482, also held that income/ consideration received by assessee from relinquishment of right in a plot of land has to be assessed under the head 'capital gains'. (f). In the case of CIT v. Vijay Flexible Containers

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment.” 3.7. We further place our reliance on the various court decision on the identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239], (Hon’ble Kerala High Court) 3. CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [370 ITR 87] (Hon’ble Madras

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

reassessment.” 3.7. We further place our reliance on the various court decision on the identical matters are mentioned hereunder: 1. ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd., [32 taxmann.com 162](Hon'ble Bombay High court), 2. Travancore Diagnostics (P.) Ltd., v. ACIT [74 taxmann.com 239], (Hon’ble Kerala High Court) 3. CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [370 ITR 87] (Hon’ble Madras

ACIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

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

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

47 NO NO NO balance of the assessee company for the period 19 I.T.As. No. 4046, 4047 & 4048/DEL/2017 01.04.2012 to Copy of trial This The transactions 08.10.2012. balance document in the seized cannot be pertains to document have said to A.Y. 2013-14 already been belonging to recorded in the the books of the assessee. assessee 2. Documents Supreme company

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

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

47 NO NO NO balance of the assessee company for the period 19 I.T.As. No. 4046, 4047 & 4048/DEL/2017 01.04.2012 to Copy of trial This The transactions 08.10.2012. balance document in the seized cannot be pertains to document have said to A.Y. 2013-14 already been belonging to recorded in the the books of the assessee. assessee 2. Documents Supreme company

ACIT, CC-30, NEW DELHI vs. AMARJYOTI VANIJYA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

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

47 NO NO NO balance of the assessee company for the period 19 I.T.As. No. 4046, 4047 & 4048/DEL/2017 01.04.2012 to Copy of trial This The transactions 08.10.2012. balance document in the seized cannot be pertains to document have said to A.Y. 2013-14 already been belonging to recorded in the the books of the assessee. assessee 2. Documents Supreme company

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word ‘assess’ in Section 153A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word ‘reassessee’ to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR SONI, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

47[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: ITA Nos. 1883 & 2144/Del/2023 6 Vijay Kumar Soni Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires

BIJAY KUMAR SONI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 1883/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bijay Kumar Soni, Vs Dcit, C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co., Central Circle-14, 611, Surya Kiran Building, 19, New Delhi-110055 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Ita No. 2144/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Bijay Kumar Soni, Central Circle-14, 61/14, Block No. 61, Ram Jas, New Delhi-110055 Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aolps5917H Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

47[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: ITA Nos. 1883 & 2144/Del/2023 6 Vijay Kumar Soni Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

2) of the Act in that year as against the assessee’s claim that the conversion took place in the financial year 2006-07. The assessee is also challenging the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in directing the AO to adopt the Fair Market Value as on 01/04/1981 at Rs. 100/-sq. I.T.A. No. 1789, 4579, 5337, 2163/Del/2011 Assessment

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

2) of the Act in that year as against the assessee’s claim that the conversion took place in the financial year 2006-07. The assessee is also challenging the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in directing the AO to adopt the Fair Market Value as on 01/04/1981 at Rs. 100/-sq. I.T.A. No. 1789, 4579, 5337, 2163/Del/2011 Assessment