DCIT v. Manjula J. Shah

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:

…ference to the year in which shares were first acquired by the previous owner and accordingly the benefit of indexation has to be allowed to the appellant. Reliance is placed on the ruling of Deputy .Commissioner of Income-tax, 12(2) v. Manjula J Shah, [2010} 35 SOT 105 (MUM) (SB) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Arun Shungloo Trust, [2012}18 taxmann.com 261, (Delhi) cited by the appellant. Further, fair market value of shares as on 1.4.1981 in case of shares acquired prior to that date has to be allowed. The AR has argued that in a case no family settlement would have taken place, and the shares would have been…

CIT vs. Harjeet Sikand

…mputed only with reference to the year in which the assessee became the owner of the property. The assessee?s appeal was accepted; the Appellate Commissioner relied upon the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in DCIT v. Manjula J. Shah, (2010) 35 SOT 105. The Tribunal followed that decision as well as the subsequent decision of the Delhi Bench in Aftab Shah v. ACIT. . This Court notices that view of the Special Bench was approved and endorsed in a previous judgment of this Court in Arun Shungloo Trust v. CIT (ITA No.116/2011, decided on 13.02.2012) and subsequent judgments of…