CIT v. Chand Ratan Bagri

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI vs. M/S DART INFRABUILD (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

…6.03.2016, the respondent/assessee had, amongst other objections, squarely taken the objection that the proceedings were invalid in the eyes of law as the Section 148 notice had not been directed to the correct address. [See CIT v. Chand Ratan Bagri (2010) 329 ITR 356 (Delhi); CIT v. Indoconut Finance Ltd. (2004) 136 Taxman 23 (Delhi); Rambhai Mafatlal Patel v. ITO (2021) 281 Taxman 196 (Gujarat)]. Digitally Signed By:PREM MOHAN CHOUDHARY Signing Date:17.11.2023 17:37:34 Signature Not Verified ITA 10/2022…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. GLOXINIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.3309/Del/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Gloxinia Infrastructure P. Ltd. Circle-10(1), 296, Forest Lane, Neb Sarai, New Delhi Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110068 (Appellant) (Respondent)

…Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has answered this by concluding as under:- ITA 3309.Del.2018 6 “9. So far as the issue for taxation in the hands of the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of honourable Delhi High Court in 329 ITR 356 in case of CIT versus Chand Ratan Bagri, wherein the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis and the addition was made on substantive basis in the hands of the company who forfeited the shares. In paragraph number 2 there was also an allegation of tax evasion tactic prohibited by law employed by the assessee. It is also…

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

…e case of M/s Azalea Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has answered this by concluding as under:- “9. So far as the issue for taxation in the hands of the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of honourable Delhi High Court in 329 ITR 356 in case of CIT versus Chand Ratan Bagri, wherein the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis and the addition was made on substantive basis in the hands of the company who forfeited the shares. In paragraph number 2 there was also an allegation of tax evasion tactic prohibited by law employed by the assessee. It is also…

M/S. MILI MARKETING PVT. LTD,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

…of Pavitra Commercial ITA 5389/DEL/2012 has deleted the said disallowance. The findings of the Tribunal read as under: “7.3. After hearing rival contentions, we hold as follows. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chand Ratan Bagri reported in 329 ITR 356 has held as follows. "More importantly, the second issue as to whether the forfeiture of the convertible warrant amounted to a transfer within the meaning of s.2(47) of the said Act has now been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323 as also by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (2009)…

M/S. MILI MARKETING PVT. LTD,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

…of Pavitra Commercial ITA 5389/DEL/2012 has deleted the said disallowance. The findings of the Tribunal read as under: “7.3. After hearing rival contentions, we hold as follows. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chand Ratan Bagri reported in 329 ITR 356 has held as follows. "More importantly, the second issue as to whether the forfeiture of the convertible warrant amounted to a transfer within the meaning of s.2(47) of the said Act has now been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs.Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323 as also by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (2009)…

CHATURANAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Chaturanan Industries Ltd. The Dcit, H-108, Connaught Circus, Central Circle-20(Now Cc-8), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aaacc0762G Assessee Revenue

…allowed the short term capital loss on the forfeiture of share warrants. Hon’bie ITAT stated at para 7.3 as under: - “...7.3 After Hearing the rival contentions, we hold as follows. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Chand Ratan Bagri reported in 329 ITR 356 has held as follows. 5 ITA No.-3565/Del/2016 More importantly, the second issue as to whether the forfeiture of the convertible warrant amounted to a transfer within the meaning of s.2(47) of the said Act has now been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323 as also by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sa…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AZALEA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Azalea Infrastructure Pvt. Circle-3(2), Room No. 380B, Cr Ltd, Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi 296, Forest Lane, Neb Sarai, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Pan: Aaica8733B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…om India bulls infrastructure Ltd on forfeiture of share warrants which was disallowed by the learned assessing officer but was allowed by the learned CIT – A mainly relying on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of CIT V Ratan Chand Bagri 329 ITR 356 (Delhi) and honourable Supreme Court in case of Grace Collis 248 ITR 323 (SC) and of the honourable Karnataka High Court in case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax versus BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd 312 ITR 63. Therefore, the learned assessing officer is aggrieved and has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in circumstances…

LUSTRE MERCHANTS PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09 Lustre Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Circle 4(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, New Delhi. Rohini, Delhi. Pan: Aaacl2457D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate, Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-5, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal.

…rt in the case of CIT vs. Mrs. Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323, the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd., 312 ITR 63, the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chand Ratan Bagri, 230 CTR 258 and the decision of the 2 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vania Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 98 CTR 153. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal, but, without any success. Subsequently, the Tribunal, vide ITA No.3836/Del/2011, order dated 13th February, 2012, restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of th…

NAYAN TRADERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Nayan Traders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, H-108, Connaught Circus, Central Circle-8, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaacn8677K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashwani Seth, Ca & Shri V.K. Jain, Ca Respondent By M/S. Pramita M. Biswas, Cit(Dr)

…9-10, has allowed the short term capital loss claimed on forfeiture of the share warrant of M/s SMIEL, observing as under: “7.3. After hearing rival contentions, we hold as follows: Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chand Ratan Bagri reported in 329 ITR 356 has held as follows. “More importantly, the second issue as to whether the forfeiture of the convertible warrant amounted to a transfer within the meaning of s.2(47) of the said Act has now been made clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323 as also by the Karnataka High Court in BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd. (2009)…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. JUGAL KISHORE ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

…& Ors. [2001] 166 CTR (SC) 201: [2001)248 ITR 323 (SC). Therefore if the net result of the computation under the head capital gain is loss then it is to be dealt according to law. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs, Ratan Chand Bagri 329 ITR 356 held that forfeiture of amount paid towards convertible warrants is to be treated as Capital loss. The similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of DCIT vs. BPL Sanyo Finance Limited [2009] 312 ITR 63. 6 ITA.No.157/Del./2015 Shri Jugal Kishore Arora, New Delhi. In view of the above, the loss suffered on forfeitur…