MAHAVIR TRANSMISSIN LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25 , 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

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto.” 85. Provisions of Section 142A are as under

MAHAVIR TRANSMISSION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-25, 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

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto.” 85. Provisions of Section 142A are as under

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

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto.” 85. Provisions of Section 142A are as under

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

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto.” 85. Provisions of Section 142A are as under

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

x) of sub-section (2) of section 56 by the Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 1-4-2019: (xi) any compensation or other payment, due to or received by any person, by whatever name called, in connection with the termination of his employment or the modification of the terms and conditions relating thereto.” 85. Provisions of Section 142A are as under

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

x) As the assessments were set aside on the point of jurisdiction, there was no need to discuss merits as this could be examined during fresh assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. It was finally observed as under:- ―4. Since the assessment have been set aside on the point of jurisdiction, I do not want to discuss the addition made

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

reassess the income of the assessee for the AY 2013-14 after due application of mind independently 5. Ld. CIT (A) observed the purchase amount at Rs.1,63,50,103/- on the basis of circle rate on which stamp duty was paid in the light of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act and directed the difference

NARESH KUMAR MORYA,NARELA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 61(1), CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhannaresh Kumar Morya, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajiv Colony, Narela, Ward-61(1), New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahupm7348A

reassessment proceedings, the learned AO showcaused the assessee as to why the differential consideration of Rs. 3,32,960 (52,32,960 minus Rs. 49 lakhs) be not treated as income from other sources as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The assessee gave the entire explanation together with the relevant documents and stated

RHYTHM POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR, CIT DELHI-7, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

reassessment under Section 263 of the Act 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the contention of the appellant that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting option of the A.O. by that of the Pr. CIT 6. On the facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

56-60) & Axis Bank Limited (paper book page no. 61- 65)] and on 02/01/2016 by SBI (paper book page no. 51-55)] and later on furnished to the Ld. AO'. Obviously, there was no tangible materials in the possession of Ld. AO on the basis of which he makes a belief as to escapement of income. Reasons recorded

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

56-60) & Axis Bank Limited (paper book page no. 61- 65)] and on 02/01/2016 by SBI (paper book page no. 51-55)] and later on furnished to the Ld. AO'. Obviously, there was no tangible materials in the possession of Ld. AO on the basis of which he makes a belief as to escapement of income. Reasons recorded

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:

56[or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under sub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the advance ruling pronounced by it is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (7) of section 245R; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references

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:

56[or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under sub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the advance ruling pronounced by it is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (7) of section 245R; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. M/S ACE MEGA STRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

56(2)(x) relating to the difference between stamp duty value and ITA Nos.4115 & 4067/Del/2025 consideration in the case of any other person(Company) were made applicable only from 01.04.2017.At the time of purchase (F.Y. 2015–16), no such provision existed in the statute, and therefore, any comparison of circle rate vis-à-vis the sale price has no relevance

ACE MEGA STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, NOIDA, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsl. Ita No(S) Asst. Appeal(S) By No Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 4067/Del/2025 2019-20 M/S. Ace Mega Dcit/Acit Structures Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D M/S. Ace Mega 2. 4115/Del/2025 2019-20 Dcit, Structures Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1, A.R.T.O Complex, Sector-33, I-B, 7Th Floor, Ace Studio, Noida-201301. Sector-126, Noida, Sector- 37, S.O. Gautam Budh Nagar-201303 Pan-Aakca8694D Appellant By Shri Rohit Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Virsain Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025

56(2)(x) relating to the difference between stamp duty value and ITA Nos.4115 & 4067/Del/2025 consideration in the case of any other person(Company) were made applicable only from 01.04.2017.At the time of purchase (F.Y. 2015–16), no such provision existed in the statute, and therefore, any comparison of circle rate vis-à-vis the sale price has no relevance

MURARI LAL HARISH CHAND JAISWAL PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Murari Lal Harish Chand Vs Dcit Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., 6043, Central Circle-31, Naya Bans, Chandni Delhi Chowk, Delhi-110006. Pan-Aaacm6428P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.30/10268/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2021 Passed U/S 153A Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Is A Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Of Tobacco Products & Derived Income From Profits & Gains From Business & From Capital Gain/Loss & Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2018, Declaring Income Of Inr 1,09,82,630/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For Following Two Issues:- (I) Icds Compliance & Adjustment (Ii) Income U/S 56(2)(X)

56(2)(x) of the Act could be invoked. This view is supported by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT, Central Circle-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (2023) 454 ITR 212 (S.C) dated 12.05.2023 wherein it is held as under:- "14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

56. Chapter X of the Act being a specific statutory provision has to be given effect to and in view of the said provisions arm‘s length price can be determined. The arm‘s length procedure prescribed in Chapter X, once applicable has to be given full application. Impact of Chapter X of the Act cannot be controlled or curtailed

ALANKIT FOREX INDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member

Section 153A. The fact that any additions that may be ultimately made upon a culmination of assessment under Section 153A being indelibly founded on the material gathered in the course of the search is a separate issue all together. 44. The usage of the expression "have a bearing" would necessarily lead one to conclude that the mere discovery of books