THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

viii) Muneer Enterprises Vs. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd., (2015) 5 SCC 366. (ix) State of T.N. Vs. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205. (x) Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1. (xi) Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1. (xii) R. Muthukumar Vs. TANGEDCO

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

56(2)(vii) is unsustainable in law. 27. With regard to the addition made in respect of unsecured loan received from M/s Vidhya Shankar Investments Pvt Ltd., it is submitted that aforesaid company is a Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) and is engaged in the business of sale, purchase and trading of the shares and giving loans and advances. From

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

56(2)(viii) and 57(iv), the nature of interest under section 28 of the 1894 Act will remain that of compensation and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) and the decision of Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai vs. ITO TDS (2016) 388 ITR 343 were relied upon

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

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

VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or (IX) by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under clause

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

VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or (IX) by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under clause

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

VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or (IX) by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under clause

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

VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or (IX) by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under clause

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

VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or (IX) by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under clause

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

VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or (IX) by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under clause

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

VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or (IX) by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under clause

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

viii) in sub-section 2 of section 56, clause(iv) in section 57 and clause (b) in Section 145A w.e.f 01.04.2010. From the assessment year 2010-11 onwards, the amount of compensation or enhanced compensation is taxable as "income from other sources after allowing deduction of a sum equal to 50% of such income

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

EBRO INDIA PVT.LTD. ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI

In the result, the ground no 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Accountant Member)

56. The aforesaid addition of Rs.134.99 crores made under section 68 of the Act is, it is submitted, beyond jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law for the reason explained hereunder: Re (a): Addition in gross violation of binding directions of the DRP 57. As explained supra, the DRP duly considered the submissions of the assessee including that the assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

68. In Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 this Court specifically dealt with the 2015 Amendment which inserted sub-section (2-A) in Section 34 of the 1996 Act. It was held that “patent illegality appearing on the face of the award” refers to such illegality as goes to the root of matter

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

Appeal is allowed

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

viii) R. B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (1998) 233 ITR 53 (SC); (ix) Kanahya Lal Punj Charitable Trust Vs. DIT (Exemption) (2008) 171 Taxman 134 (Del.); (x) DIT (E) Vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 43 Taxman.com 300 (Del.); (xi) Mundakapadam Mandirams Society Vs. CIT (2002) 125 Taxman 515 (Ker.); (xii) Kamma Sangham Vs. DIT (E) (2014) 43 Taxman.com

SADHVI SECURITIES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLER-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Sadhvi Securities P. Ltd., Vs Acit, 13/34, Wea, Arya Samaj Road, Central Circle-5, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aahcs7130D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.P. Gupta & Shri Anunav Kumar, Advocates Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th January, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-24, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Share Trading. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.910/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Has Introduced Share Capital By Issuing 1800000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10 Each At A Premium Of Rs.90 Per Share Aggregating To Rs.18 Crore In The Balance Sheet As On 31.03.2014. Since The Assessee Has Charged Very High Premium On The Shares So Allotted, The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Furnish Complete

68,000/- made by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant without appreciating that no addition was called for in the case of the appellant in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with Rule 11UA of Income-tax Rules. 2. That the order passed

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