ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Long Term Capital Loss. In so far as amount of Rs.57,05,498/- treated as business income as against Short Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee, we have already given the direction to the Assessing Officer in the earlier year, therefore, same finding will apply mutatis mutandis in this year also. 29. Now coming to the issue of disallowance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Long Term Capital Loss. In so far as amount of Rs.57,05,498/- treated as business income as against Short Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee, we have already given the direction to the Assessing Officer in the earlier year, therefore, same finding will apply mutatis mutandis in this year also. 29. Now coming to the issue of disallowance

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Long Term Capital Loss. In so far as amount of Rs.57,05,498/- treated as business income as against Short Term Capital Gain claimed by the assessee, we have already given the direction to the Assessing Officer in the earlier year, therefore, same finding will apply mutatis mutandis in this year also. 29. Now coming to the issue of disallowance

M/S. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

gain on mutual funds of Rs.2,71,270/-, the assessee claimed total long term capital loss of Rs.38,58,662/- to be carried forward. The ld. Assessing Officer did not address this issue in the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A), however, keeping in view the fact that the assessee company was holding 49% of the shares of said company

M/S. R.C. NARULA & SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for A

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

long term capital gain in respect of property No. A-212 at Rs.28,96,991/-. 5. Further on scrutiny of accounts, the Assessing Officer noticed for the assessment year 2009-10 that the assessee has shown interest income on FDR with HDFC bank of Rs.3,78,126/- whereas as per information from 26AS, whereas as per information from 26AS

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

long term capital losses of Rs. 7,31,67,675 to the appellant against the capital gain so computed and further carrying forward the balance capital loss. 4. That the DRP has erred in passing a non-speaking order while dismissing the grounds relating to capital gain referred in para 3.2 to 3.5. 5. That the learned AO has erroneously

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHAJAN INDUSTRIES P. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

long term capital gain [LTCG] as claimed by the assessee which accrued to it from sale of said property at 27 Curzon Road. The ld. DR vehemently argued that he ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee without any basis therefore the impugned order on this issue may be set aside by restoring that of the AO. However

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

long-term capital loss of Rs.219,70,90,370/- declared by the assessee after claiming benefit of indexation. 9.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in assessing short- term capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

long-term capital loss of Rs.219,70,90,370/- declared by the assessee after claiming benefit of indexation. 9.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in assessing short- term capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SEEMA SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

long term capital gain or is short term capital gain. It was held a right or interest in an immovable property can accrue only by way of an agreement embodying consensus ad idem as against the confirmation letter that does confer any right to claim title. Similarly in the case of CIT vs. R.L.Sood [2008] 109 man 227/245

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI PRADEEP SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

long term capital gain or is short term capital gain. It was held a right or interest in an immovable property can accrue only by way of an agreement embodying consensus ad idem as against the confirmation letter that does confer any right to claim title. Similarly in the case of CIT vs. R.L.Sood [2008] 109 man 227/245

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI AKSHAY SOBTI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the 02 appeals filed by the Revenue stand

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2012-13

long term capital gain or is short term capital gain. It was held a right or interest in an immovable property can accrue only by way of an agreement embodying consensus ad idem as against the confirmation letter that does confer any right to claim title. Similarly in the case of CIT vs. R.L.Sood [2008] 109 man 227/245

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

long Page 8 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi term capital gain of Rs. 12,30,01,903/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,53,57,250/- and claimed TDS

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

long Page 8 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi term capital gain of Rs. 12,30,01,903/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,53,57,250/- and claimed TDS

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

long Page 8 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi term capital gain of Rs. 12,30,01,903/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 on 30.07.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 12,53,57,250/- and claimed TDS

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

long-term capital loss of Rs.219,70,90,370/- declared by the assessee\nafter claiming benefit of indexation.\n9.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in assessing short\nterm capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units

SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

long term capital gain earned by the assessee on transfer of property. 2 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has misdirected herself in ignoring the cost of improvement on the ground that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was revenue in nature. Since the bifurcation of expenditure into capital and revenue is not relevant for the purposes of computing capital

TOSCANA LASTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Toscana Lasts Ltd., Vs. Ito, (Since Amalgamated With Avantha Ward 16(3), Reality Ltd.), Thapar House, New Delhi. 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaact3805H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs. Toscana Lasts Ltd., Ward 16(3), (Since Amalgamated With New Delhi. Avantha Reality Ltd.), Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaact3805H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, the Assessing Officer has not doubted the genuineness repair and maintenance expenses as he himself has allowed depreciation on these expenses, and the claimed bad debt has been written off in the books of account. We thus in the interest of 8 justice set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the above claim