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

deem it proper that in so far as transaction of shares shown under the head ‘Short Term Capital Gain’, matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine, whether there is any repetitive transaction; or whether similar scrips have been shown by the assessee in its trading portfolio; or there is frequent switching of same

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

deem it proper that in so far as transaction of shares shown under the head ‘Short Term Capital Gain’, matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine, whether there is any repetitive transaction; or whether similar scrips have been shown by the assessee in its trading portfolio; or there is frequent switching of same

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

deemed to accrue or arise in India in all cases irrespective of whether the capital asset is movable or immovable, tangible or intangible; the place of registration of the document of transfer etc. is in India or outside India; and the place of payment of the consideration for the transfer is within India or outside India, as long as such

NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place”. 17. That the CIT(A) also erred in not following the jurisdictional High Court judgments, violating the principal of judicial discipline, where the High Court has categorically held that the AO has no power to substitute the actual sale consideration with any notional consideration, there

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. But no separate addition was made in the final computation of the order on this account as amount of advance received by way of security deposit was already taxed under the head ‘capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MONI KUMAR SUBBA, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

deemed dividend in terms of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. But no separate addition was made in the final computation of the order on this account as amount of advance received by way of security deposit was already taxed under the head ‘capital gain

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

dividends accruing to them from their Indian investments. The basis on which the showcause notices were issued was that the recipient of the showcause notices were shell companies incorporated in Mauritius, with the sole or primary purposeof routing investments into India through Mauritius so as to avail the benefits under India-Mauritius DTAA. These actions created significant panic

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

dividend, but with the dominant intention of resale in order to earn profits; the profit made by them is not of mere enhancement of value of the shares, but is a profit made in the carrying on of a business scheme of profit making; huge volume of share transactions, the repetition and continuity of the transactions, give them a flavour

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

dividends. On the basis of the financial health, it was highly improbable that a prudent man would invest in such a company. It is even more unlikely or rather impossible that the value of shares of such company would result in gain of Rs. 63,01,425/-. To reiterate, the investment of Rs. 10 in a single share would

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

dividend received is exempt and capital gain on sale of shares is also exempt. He also contended that on investment in partnership firm, the assessee had received interest of Rs.84,17,935/- which is taxable income. Therefore, such investment cannot be considered for earning exempt income and the same has to be reduced from the average total investment of Rs.16

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Capital Services ltd. IY 2013- 14 are as under:- " 12.6 The reply of assessee is carefully considered. (i) The provision of section 2(22ttet applies to closely held company the assessee company is a private company in which the public is not substantially interested. Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 plainly seeks to bring within

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

dividend. If as a matter of fact, the Legislature had contemplated making the unit as also a deemed share, then it would have stated so. In the absence of any such specific deeming in regards to units as shares, it would be erroneous to extend the provisions of Section 32(3) of units of UTI for the purpose of holding

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

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 of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

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 of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO- OPERATION AGENCY,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

dividend income received by SARA fund by venture capital fund (VCF)”. 11 I.T.A.Nos.3284/Del/2012 I.T.A.No.5705/Del/2010 14.1 To decide the controversy at hand, newly added provisions contained u/s 115U of the Act vide CBDT Rule No.794 dated 09.08.2000 are reproduced s under for ready reference: “13.8. Section 115U of this Chapter provides that, (i) any income received by a person

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

deemed to accrue and arise in India. He submitted, all the Employment Agreements pursuant to which assessee’s right to acquire or right to obtain shares arose were entered outside India and were subject to the US 13 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 jurisdiction. Therefore, situs of assessee’s interest or rights to acquire shares, which

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WIG INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) has not been examined; and redemption of mutual funds by the assessee during the year should be treated as ‘business income’ as against the capital gains

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WIG INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) has not been examined; and redemption of mutual funds by the assessee during the year should be treated as ‘business income’ as against the capital gains