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

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 u/s.14 of Rs.25,57,020/-, it is seen that the disallowance consists of interest component made under Rule

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

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 u/s.14 of Rs.25,57,020/-, it is seen that the disallowance consists of interest component made under Rule

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

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

short-term capital gain as this is not a case of sale of underlying assets owned by the Company. The Assessee has not transferred depreciable assets and has never claimed depreciation as well. The Assessee was not the owner of such assets and was not even entitled to claim depreciation. 18. That, even otherwise, the holding period, the full value

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

short-term capital gain as this is not a case of sale of underlying assets owned by the Company. The Assessee has not transferred depreciable assets and has never claimed depreciation as well. The Assessee was not the owner of such assets and was not even entitled to claim depreciation. 18. That, even otherwise, the holding period, the full value

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

short-term capital gain as this is not a case of sale of underlying assets owned by the Company. The Assessee has not transferred depreciable assets and has never claimed depreciation as well. The Assessee was not the owner of such assets and was not even entitled to claim depreciation. 18. That, even otherwise, the holding period, the full value

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

Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining

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

Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

TDS on the said sale of shares, as such, Return of Income was filed by the assessee company to claim refund of the same. It is submitted that Learned DRP/AO has denied the benefit of Article 13(4) DTAA and have brought to tax the aforesaid long term capital gain in India. 5.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

short term capital gain of Rs.52,80,000/- on substantive basis after relying on many case laws. ITA No. 6093/Del/2015 & 1028/Del/2014 9 4. Further, in respect of assessment year 2009-10, the long term capital gain was assessed at Rs.36,29,880/- on protective basis in respect of property No. B-221. The Assessing Officer computed the long term capital

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

short term investments. They always reinvest the same only after\nmaturity of the investments and do not make any short selling or traded the same. As\nper the information available on the record, they always buy the mutual funds with the\nterm 13months, it clearly demonstrates that the intention is only to make the\ninvestment and not for trading

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

gains. 74. The provisions of Income Tax Act empower the Assessing Officer to disturb the sale consideration in respect of sale of any capital asset on the two circumstances; a. When the sale consideration is below the circle rate and; b. When there is evidence to establish that the actual consideration was more than the disclosed sale consideration

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. vs. OM PRAKASH ARORA, CONNAUGHT PLACE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

gains. 74. The provisions of Income Tax Act empower the Assessing Officer to disturb the sale consideration in respect of sale of any capital asset on the two circumstances; a. When the sale consideration is below the circle rate and; b. When there is evidence to establish that the actual consideration was more than the disclosed sale consideration

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

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, the ld. DR fairly

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

short term capital gain at ₹1,27,22,989/-. The PCIT also directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the long term capital gain to ₹80,42,324/- as against declared by the assessee at ₹89,46,691/-. According to the PCIT, these funds are not equity-oriented funds and hence, these are to be taxed on normal rate of taxation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAHUL JUNEJA, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. O.P. Kant & Sh. K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. Sh. Rahul Juneja, Circle 31(1), New Delhi Plot No. 29, Dlf Indl. Area, Phase-I, Faridabad Pan : Aafpj2485F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Date Of Hearing 21.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

capital gains without filing a revised 2 return as required u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, particularly in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 ? 3. The appellant cra\/zs leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or during

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

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 ITR 727 (Delhi), the Honorable High Court has declined

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

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 ITR 727 (Delhi), the Honorable High Court has declined