DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Transfer (BOT) projects from ICDS IV on Revenue Recognition, please clarify whether ICDS III and ICDS IV should be applied by real estate developers and BOT operators. Also, whether ICDS applicable for lease. A:12: At present there is no specific ICDS notified for real estate developers, BOT projects and leases. Therefore, relevant provisions of the Act and ICDS shall

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Transfer (BOT) projects from ICDS IV on Revenue Recognition, please clarify whether ICDS III and ICDS IV should be applied by real estate developers and BOT operators. Also, whether ICDS applicable for lease. A:12: At present there is no specific ICDS notified for real estate developers, BOT projects and leases. Therefore, relevant provisions of the Act and ICDS shall

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. DLF LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Transfer (BOT) projects from ICDS IV on Revenue Recognition, please clarify whether ICDS III and ICDS IV should be applied by real estate developers and BOT operators. Also, whether ICDS applicable for lease. A:12: At present there is no specific ICDS notified for real estate developers, BOT projects and leases. Therefore, relevant provisions of the Act and ICDS shall

DLF LIMITED,DELHI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Transfer (BOT) projects from ICDS IV on Revenue Recognition, please clarify whether ICDS III and ICDS IV should be applied by real estate developers and BOT operators. Also, whether ICDS applicable for lease. A:12: At present there is no specific ICDS notified for real estate developers, BOT projects and leases. Therefore, relevant provisions of the Act and ICDS shall

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:

section 55(2)(1), cost inflation index was to be applied with effect from 1-4-1981 instead of the year of acquisition by the assessee. 46. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sushil Kumar: 231 Taxman 788 held that where capital asset was property of HUF prior to 1.4.1981 and assessee acquired absolute ownership

VACHASPATI SHARMA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -4(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

price of acquired land. It may be noted that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s 34 of Land Acquisition Act only if there is delay in payment of compensation on or before taking possession of the acquired land. He has further submitted that award of interest under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 discretionary and is determine

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR MAHASANG HARYANA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH/FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 92C (2) of the Act. 11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) have erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for comparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of the Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price. CORPORATE

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

pricing adjustment particularly when all the requisite details & documents were placed before the authorities with regard to purchase of capital assets and hence, the entire erroneous addition needs to be deleted.\n13. That on the facts, law and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. DRP has erred in law in making addition

JAGPAL,GURUGRAM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

transfer received by such assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2004. 21. From the study of law as it exists today, we are of the considered view that the legal position as deliberated by the ld counsel of the assessee has undergone a sea change in the present with the amendment brought in the statute in section

VEENA SHAH,PANIPAT vs. PR CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

transfer received by such assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2004. 11. The amendment brought into Section 56 of the Act,vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 (with effect from 01.10.2010) [clause (viii) of sub- Section 2 to Section 56], relevant for deciding this caseis extracted hereunder: - 15 "56. Income from other sources: - (2) In particular and without

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 92C (2) of the Act.\n11. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)\nhave erred in not directing the AO/TPO to use multiple years data for\ncomparable companies as advocated by the provisions of Rule 10B(4) of\nthe Rules for the purposes of determination of arm's length price.\nCORPORATE

BHIM SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

transfer received by such assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2004. 21. From the study of law as it exists today, we are of the considered view that the legal position as deliberated by the ld counsel of the assessee has undergone a sea change in the present with the amendment brought in the statute in section

BIR SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

transfer received by such assessee on or after the 1st day of April, 2004. 21. From the study of law as it exists today, we are of the considered view that the legal position as deliberated by the ld counsel of the assessee has undergone a sea change in the present with the amendment brought in the statute in section

SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

transfer pricing proceedings, the TPO had vide a show-cause notice (SCN) dated 17 September 2018 rejected the TNMM analysis (aggregated approach) adopted by the assessee. Instead, the TPO chose to apply the CUP method and thereby proposed three third party royalty agreements (with an ALP of 1.50%). This SCN was responded to vide 33 Samsung India Electronics. submission dated

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

transfer pricing provisions were not at all applicable in the relevant assessment year in so far as the appellant had undertaken transactions only with domestic entities. Thus, there was no requirement for the appellant to file Form 3CEB and the PCIT has erroneously drawn adverse inference in this regard without even verifying basic facts

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT E (CIRCLE), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

prices generating profits. Besides the assessee has substantial income in the nature of rental/lease/ hiring income. It is also understood that the disposal of properties by the assessee authority is by several modes including draw of lots lottery and auction. The very nature of such disposal contemplates sale to the highest bidder presumably generating profits or to unidentified persons

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

prices generating profits. Besides the assessee has substantial income in the nature of rental/lease/ hiring income. It is also understood that the disposal of properties by the assessee authority is by several modes including draw of lots lottery and auction. The very nature of such disposal contemplates sale to the highest bidder presumably generating profits or to unidentified persons