← All Phrases

“Section 112(1)(c)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 112Section 112(1)(c)(ii)5 judgments

CPI INDIA I LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1826/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.1826/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2018-19) Cpi India I Ltd. C/O Vasa Chauhan & Associates, Off. No. 41, 3Rd Floor, Hi Life Premises, P M Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400054 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadcc-1505-G बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, International Taxation 1(2)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, (Through Vc) & Ms. Kashish Gupta, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By: Shri M.S Nethrapal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2025 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Assessee Is A Tax Resident Of Mauritius. The Assesee Is An Investment Holding Company. The Assessee Has Obtained Global Business License From The Financial

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, (Through VC) &For Respondent: Shri M.S Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 112(1)(c)Section 147Section 48

first proviso to section 48 of the Act and held that the assessee is liable to tax as per the provisions of section 112(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. The AO also denied Treaty benefit on Long Term Capital Loss determined by the assessee. The ld. AR submits that

CRESTA FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 752/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI M

CRESTA FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXAION, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 751/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI M

FIRESTONE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS INC,UNITED STATES vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned addition is deleted

ITA 1066/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), assessee had taken a plea that the company is a separate entity from its share holders/members and, with transfer of shares, assets of the company are not transferred, and the same continues to be held by the company. It was also explained that since the assessee did not have PAN at the time of sale of shares, buyer M/s Sundaram Industries Pvt. Ltd. deducted @20% plus surcharge and cess on such Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee, which is reflected in From 26AS an

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. SupriyaFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 112(1)Section 112(1)(c)Section 112(1)(ii)

there can be no attribution of any Long Term Capital Gain on account of transfer of shares for the purpose of Section 112(1)(c)(ii) taxing the income at 20% plus surcharge and cess. Assessee had reasonably explained the reasons for deduction of 20% of the TDS by Sundaram

CPI INDIA I LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INT.TAX. CIRCLE-1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 382/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2016-17 . Cpi India Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O- Vasa Chauhan & International Taxation, Associates Off. No. 41, Circle -1(2)1), 3Rd Floor, High Life Premises, Delhi P.M. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai Pan :Aadcc1505G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 112(1)(c)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 48Section 48(1)

proviso to section 48 of the Act read with Rule 115A without applying the provisions of section 112 is thoroughly misconceived as section 112(1)(c)(ii) specifically excludes applicability of second proviso to section 48 of the Act. In certain circumstances assessee’s claim cannot ... accepted. He submitted, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee are prior to the introduction of section 112(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, hence, may not be relevant for deciding the issue at hand. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision