JAGMAL SINGH THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SATISH KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 2(2), GURGAON

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblejagmal Singh Vs Ito Village Khoh, Vpo Manesar, Gurgaon Ward-2(2) Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana Cphps0368P (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,062/- but the same was not disclosed in the return. The Assessing Officer observed that income of Rs.47,84,030/- was escaped from the assessment as the provisions of Clause VIII of Sub Clause 2 of Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, regarding interest on compensation/enhance compensation is taxable. Thus, the Assessing Officer made an addition

VEDANTA LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,565 Consequently, the differential amount of Rs.2,42, 43,308/- was also required to be disallowed U/s. 43 B of IT Act 1961”. (Refer Point 3 ii and 3 ii of the notice under section 263 Page No 104 paper Book) 3.2.2 The appellant company vide its submissions dated 15.02.2017 (Refer Paper Book Page No. 105) stated that

VACHITRA BUILDERS PVT LTD ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

68 of the IT Act. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions made in the assessment. The Ld. DR further submitted as under:- “5. During the course of hearing on 22.09.2022, the AR of the assessee insisted that he filed all requisite documents pertaining to the lenders viz. confirmation, ledger account, bank statement, acknowledgement of ITR, Tax audit report with

ITO, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. CHAMAN, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

145A were brought on the statute to nullify the effect of Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Rama Bai and not Ghanshyam HUF. Moreover, it is brought to our notice by the Ld. AR that the decision in Ghanshyam HUF was pronounced in July, 2016 and the Finance Bill proposing amendment to section

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

section 145A were not applicable as the assessment year under consideration was 1995-96. In view of the detailed discussion supra with reference to the applicability of section 145A to the year in question, there can be no escape from valuation of purchase, sale and inventories under the inclusive method. We, therefore, direct the AO to recast Profit

JILE SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2223/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Jile Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 68, Sotai, Near Mahipal Ward-51(3), Nambardar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fzsps8684G Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order

68, Sotai, Near Mahipal Ward-51(3), Nambardar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. FZSPS8684G Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

section 145A and then some adjustments as stated above be separately made. Such directions are fully applicable pro tanto to the customs duty paid under protest. The AO is directed to follow the same.” 3.30. While following the same for AY 2007-08, Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide it afresh

GULSHAN KUMAR ,FATEHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

68 of Paper Book) was issued by the Ld. PCIT to the assessee. Gulshan Kumar vs. Pr.CIT 5 8.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that it is incorrect to allege that the Ld. AO did not make requisite enquiry which he ought to have done. At page 29- 31 of Paper Book is notice under section

M/S. KURELE PAN PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5597/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

145A is incomplete books of accounts and applying gross profit of some other similar entity. During the 13 ITA.No.5405/Del./2014 M/s. Kurele Pan Products (P) Ltd., Delhi And ITA.No.5597/Del./2014 M/s. Kurele Fragrances (P) Ltd., Kanpur, U.P. appellate proceedings, Ld.AR explained that complete sets of books of accounts are now available as the same was released by Central

KURELE FRAGRANCES (P) LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5597/Del

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

145A is incomplete books of accounts and applying gross profit of some other similar entity. During the 13 ITA.No.5405/Del./2014 M/s. Kurele Pan Products (P) Ltd., Delhi And ITA.No.5597/Del./2014 M/s. Kurele Fragrances (P) Ltd., Kanpur, U.P. appellate proceedings, Ld.AR explained that complete sets of books of accounts are now available as the same was released by Central

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

68,222/- representing custom duty in respect of the goods in transit/under inspection. 3.10. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction under section 43B of the Act for a sum of Rs.30,48,61,320/- representing the custom duty paid and included in valuation o closing stock. 3.11. That the Assessing Officer

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Circle-16(1), Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Dcit, Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Circle-16(1), Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. Pan-Aaacm0829Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv., Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Ms. Tejasvi Jain & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri G.C.Srivastava, Adv., Shri Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv. & Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

68,222/- representing custom duty in respect of the goods in transit/under inspection. 3.10. That the Assessing Officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction under section 43B of the Act for a sum of Rs.30,48,61,320/- representing the custom duty paid and included in valuation o closing stock. 3.11. That the Assessing Officer

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 7(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

68,30,422/- has escaped assessment as defined by section 147 of the Act for assessment year 2011-12. The income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for this year by the reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Therefore, it is a fit case for the issuance

M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Sh. Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Acit, 1711, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Vs Central Circle – 29, Delhi-110006 New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd0132H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. S. Singhavi, Ca Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2020 Order

68-72 12. Page 48 Para 17.3 Reliance is also placed on factual finding of Hon’ble ITAT in consolidated order for AY 2005-06 to 2009- 10 which was also considered in ITAT order for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12. In the present case also, the impugned disallowance is merely based on documents seized during search in year

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

145A. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 145,— (a) the valuation of purchase and sale of goods and inventory for the purposes of determining the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” shall be— (i) in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee; and (ii) further adjusted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD.,, DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

145A of The Act, if there is a change in closing stock as on 31st March, 1999, there must necessarily be a corresponding adjustment made in opening stock as on 1st April, 1998. 17. He further submitted that Further, considering entirety of facts, adjustment in value of opening and closing stock would be a revenue neutral exercise and no fruitful

M/S MARUTI UDYOG LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL

Bench: 31St March 2000, I.E. The End Of The Relevant Accounting Year, Even Though The Assessee Has Already Incurred Liability Of Excise Duty Of Rs.12.27 Crores?

145A of the Act is prospective and does not apply to the AY in question. 48. The Court is not inclined to permit the Assessee to raise the alternative plea for more than one reason. In the first place, it is a plea taken for the first ITA No.31/2005 Page 28 of 41 time in these proceedings. It appears

KARAM VIR YADAV,GURGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmakaramvir Yadav, Vs. Assessing Officer, 1135, Sector 46, Nfac, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Abipy5863E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ranjan Chopra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 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)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 29.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Assessee Company, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Of The Act, So Much So That, The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Do Not Satisfy The Statutory Twin Conditions Prescribed Under Section 263 Of The Act, Viz., (I) That The Assessment

section 2(28A) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) and 145A(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the year of receipt. The provisions of 2(28A) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii), 57(iv) r.w.s. 145A(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are very loud and clear to held that interest received on all compensations of land acquisitions