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

income, the appellant claimed long-term capital loss of Rs.220 crores and net short term capital gain of Rs.6.91 crores. The assessing officer however, simply following the assessment order for AY 2010-11 treated the aforesaid “capital gains” as “business

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 :-

gain as declared by the assessee. The undersigned is also satisfied that the assessee by claiming business income of Rs.367,965,338/- [368782299 (assessed business income) - 816961 (declared business income)) as income from capital

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Business 143(3) Capital Capital 67-75 Gain Gain income Gain 2010-11 Capital Business 143(3) Capital Capital 76-89 Gain

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

Gain as per the details incorporated above. The income earned by the assessee from various sources was as under: - Particular Asset Type Amount s Income a)Trading in units of 360,77,965 from Mutual Funds; Business b) Income from Interest; (A) c)Incentive and Miscellaneous Income Income Income from Capital

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

business income against capital gain offered by the assessee either under long term capital gain or short term capital gain

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

income, the appellant\nclaimed long-term capital loss of Rs.220 crores and net short term capital gain\nof Rs.6.91 crores.\nThe assessing officer however, simply following the assessment order for AY\n2010-11 treated the aforesaid “capital gains” as “business

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Business"" Their Lordships after analysing the provisions of section 70 and section 10(27) observed in the following manner: "In this case it is important to bear in mind that set-off is being claimed under Section 70 of the 1961 Act which permits set off of any income falling under any head of income other than the capital gain

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Business"" Their Lordships after analysing the provisions of section 70 and section 10(27) observed in the following manner: "In this case it is important to bear in mind that set-off is being claimed under Section 70 of the 1961 Act which permits set off of any income falling under any head of income other than the capital gain

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gains of business or profession', would be taxed as 'income from other sources'. 11.1 He submitted that in the present case, without prejudice to the aforesaid submission that such lease rental would be taxed as 'business income', the same can be taxed under the head 'income from other sources' and accordingly, expenses incurred for earning of such income would

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

income and capital gains between India and Mauritius” has clarified that capital gains on sale of investment made before 1st April, 2017 have been grandfathered and will not be subject to capital gains taxation in India. The above have been arbitrarily rejected by both AO/DRP on misconceived and wholly extraneous and irrelevant considerations. 5. That the Ld. AO/DRP has further

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V N vs. DAMANJIT SINGH

capital receipt since the deposit was incidental to the acquisition of assets. The decision of the Madras High Court in South India Shipping Corporation v. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 24 (Mad) was also rendered in the context of treating certain receipts not as business income but income from other sources for the purposes of Section 56 read with Section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RADHARANI ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gains [LTCG] and Short Term Capital Gains [STCG] on sale of shares. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee is engaged in the business

ARUNIMA ADCON SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gains [LTCG] and Short Term Capital Gains [STCG] on sale of shares. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee is engaged in the business

CHOWDRY ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that income from such long term asset is shown in the books as income from operations and section 28 of the Act will apply on income shown as from operations. The AO treated the investment in the mutual funds as business

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

Business income holding the investment in property as\nstock inventory on sale of inventory as against Capital gains\nshown by the appellant

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

business, there has to be two staged computation of income. First income has to be computed as per S. 44 read with First Schedule & while computing income all the other provisions relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head „Interest on Securities‟, „income from house property‟, „income from capital gains

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income; importantly, the said provision was introduced prospectively w.e.f. assessment year 2019-20. The same also supports that the compensation received prior to AY 2019-20 is a capital receipt not liable to tax. 6.10 Re: Concise GOA Nos.1 to 5: Compensation taxable as long-term capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PNB FINANCE & INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

business of buying and sale of such shares, while at the same time it can also hold some other shares as its capital for the purpose of earning dividend income. Here the shares in question were held as the assessee's capital and not as stock-in-trade. Hence, there would be capital gain