INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

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

section 143(3) of the Act [@Pg.157/ PDF 162 onwards] 15.04.2021 Notice (section 148 of the Act) New regime [@ Pg.92/ PDF 97] 68. WP(C) 11498/2019 BABA LEASE & INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED 2012-13 01.01.2014 - 21.05.2014 09.02.2015 (Through ITR of Transferor 09.02.2015 (ITR of Transferor 02.11.2016 (Assessment u/s 143(3) the case of 28.03.2019 Notice to Transferor Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

price realized by the Appellant on subsequent sale of the said shares in favour of CIL; and therefore no capital gains exigible to income tax under Section 45, read with Section 48 Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi A Y 2007-08 P a g e | 11 of Act, ever arose in the hands

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

148(2) as under :- “During the course of assessment of M/s SGS Tekniks Pvt. Ltd. a company in which the assessee is one of the directors, it was found that the company had transferred 60100 shares of M/s Eltek SGS Pvt. Ltd. on the face value of Rs.10/- each. The said company M/s SGS Tekniks Pvt. Ltd. was holding

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

148(2) as under :- “During the course of assessment of M/s SGS Tekniks Pvt. Ltd. a company in which the assessee is one of the directors, it was found that the company had transferred 60100 shares of M/s Eltek SGS Pvt. Ltd. on the face value of Rs.10/- each. The said company M/s SGS Tekniks Pvt. Ltd. was holding

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

148(2) as under :- “During the course of assessment of M/s SGS Tekniks Pvt. Ltd. a company in which the assessee is one of the directors, it was found that the company had transferred 60100 shares of M/s Eltek SGS Pvt. Ltd. on the face value of Rs.10/- each. The said company M/s SGS Tekniks Pvt. Ltd. was holding

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

148(2) as under :- “During the course of assessment of M/s SGS Tekniks Pvt. Ltd. a company in which the assessee is one of the directors, it was found that the company had transferred 60100 shares of M/s Eltek SGS Pvt. Ltd. on the face value of Rs.10/- each. The said company M/s SGS Tekniks Pvt. Ltd. was holding

M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of that appendix, guarantee in relation to bondholders redemption was mentioned that the parent company (appellant) undertakes to enter into, by not letter then 120 days prior to date i.e. three years after the closing date, a guarantee pursuant to which the parent company will guarantee the due and punctual payment of the outstanding amount of the bonds

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishinew Delhi Television Ltd, Vs. Acit, 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase- Circle-13(1), Iii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, Circle-13(1), 207, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi Phase-Iii, New Delhi Pan: Aaacn0865D (Appellant) (Respondent)

2 of that appendix, guarantee in relation to bondholders redemption was mentioned that the parent company (appellant) undertakes to enter into, by not letter then 120 days prior to date i.e. three years after the closing date, a guarantee pursuant to which the parent company will guarantee the due and punctual payment of the outstanding amount of the bonds

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and [(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.] Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and [(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.] Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from

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

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and [(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company.] Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

2. “Subsequently, an information in the case was received from ITO (Inv.), Unit-7, New Delhi and a report in this regard has been received which is available on record. As реr information, the assessee has received accommodation entries amounting to Rs.9,60,000/- on different dates during the F.Y. 2011-12 pertaining to assessment year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

2. “Subsequently, an information in the case was received from ITO (Inv.), Unit-7, New Delhi and a report in this regard has been received which is available on record. As реr information, the assessee has received accommodation entries amounting to Rs.9,60,000/- on different dates during the F.Y. 2011-12 pertaining to assessment year

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

Section 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

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

Section 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

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

148, we have gone through the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuing of notice. The reasons are as under: “Smt. Krishna Devi is an existing assessee of this ward as per territorial jurisdiction. ITR has been filed by assessee for the assessment year under consideration in this ease. 2. In this case information was reed transferred from F.NO

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

price of land is more than the amount over and above Rs.595/- per sq ft, it shall be borne by Saamag. Time limit for acquiring land: i) Acquisition of 9 acres within five months. ii) Remaining 17.23177 acres within eight months. 3.1.10 i) In case Saamag acquired the land but fails to achieve sanction for the agreed project

SAAMAG CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

price of land is more than the amount over and above Rs.595/- per sq ft, it shall be borne by Saamag. Time limit for acquiring land: i) Acquisition of 9 acres within five months. ii) Remaining 17.23177 acres within eight months. 3.1.10 i) In case Saamag acquired the land but fails to achieve sanction for the agreed project