MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Spl. Rg. 10(300, 18 Taxmann.com287(Mumbai Tribunal)- As per provisions of section 10(33), source viz., transfer of capital asset being units of US 64 Scheme itself has been excluded and not capital gain

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudharydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1893/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs M/S Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax, Circle-26(1), New Delhi-110002 Rouse Avenue, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv0132B Assessee By : Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2020

gain 6,71,16,180 GroundNos.10 to 18 Treated as business income. 3. Interest income 9,00,000 Ground No.19 4. Disallowance u/s.14A 5,33,768 GroundNos.20 to 22 (not pressed) 6. The assessee questioned the above addition before the Learned CIT(Appeals) raising the issue regarding taxing the profits realized on sale of shares as business income against capital

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

addition made by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to comprehend that if on shifting the shares from individual account to the joint account there was a transfer made then obviously shares resulting into accrual of gain could not be held to be income of the assessee and as such the amount of capital

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

addition made by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to comprehend that if on shifting the shares from individual account to the joint account there was a transfer made then obviously shares resulting into accrual of gain could not be held to be income of the assessee and as such the amount of capital

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

addition made by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to comprehend that if on shifting the shares from individual account to the joint account there was a transfer made then obviously shares resulting into accrual of gain could not be held to be income of the assessee and as such the amount of capital

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

addition made by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to comprehend that if on shifting the shares from individual account to the joint account there was a transfer made then obviously shares resulting into accrual of gain could not be held to be income of the assessee and as such the amount of capital

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

addition made by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to comprehend that if on shifting the shares from individual account to the joint account there was a transfer made then obviously shares resulting into accrual of gain could not be held to be income of the assessee and as such the amount of capital

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

addition made by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to comprehend that if on shifting the shares from individual account to the joint account there was a transfer made then obviously shares resulting into accrual of gain could not be held to be income of the assessee and as such the amount of capital

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

addition of Rs. 15,41,96,869/- by treating long term capital gain and short-term capital gain as business income

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

addition of Rs. 15,41,96,869/- by treating long term capital gain and short-term capital gain as business income

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

addition of Rs. 15,41,96,869/- by treating long term capital gain and short-term capital gain as business income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain 6,71,16,180 Ground Nos. 10 to treated as business income. 18 3. Interest income 9,00,000 Ground No. 19 4. Disallowance u/s. 14A 5,33,768 Ground Nos. 20 to 22 (not pressed) 6. The assessee questioned the above addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

Addition Amount Pg. No. in CIT (Appeal) order 1 Capital Gain Income treated as Business Rs.36,79,65,338/- 67 Income

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

gain’ as offered by the assessee. However, only because of the higher rate of tax applicable to business income the AO had attempted to bring the consideration for transfer of shares held as capital asset as income from business and that by splitting the sale consideration without even allowing the cost of acquisition of the shares. Thus the AO committed

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

capital gain. The ground No.2 relates to disallowance of ₹ 53,16,568/- 3. under section 14A read with rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee disclosed income of ₹ 28.3 crores and made disallowance of ₹ 10,82,334/-, under section 14A of the Act as under: 16 ITA No. 3785/Del./2017 3.1 The action of the assessee of reducing

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain.” 4.4 Hence, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal (supra) the Grounds 1 and 2 are accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 5. The Grounds No. 3 relates to disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) 5.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DATAVISION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Acit, Vs. Datavision Systems P Ltd, Circle-10(1), 203, Pragati House, New Delhi 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaacd3381N (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains and not under the head business income. In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the revenue. With respect to the addition made on account of business income instead of short-term capital

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

capital gains not under the head income from business and profession. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I.T.A. No.5656/Del/2019 2 the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition