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)

natural for a subsidiary company to act for the benefit of its holding company. Maximizing shareholders’ wealth is the ultimate objective of any company. 65. The investments in VEL by the Assessee yielded significant gains/ value to the Assessee and the Assessee was able to support/assist its overseas group entities to make other investments. It may also be noted that

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

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

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)

capital gain of almost equal amount. The AO observed that short-term gain was not genuine inasmuch as the assessee had purchased 45,000 shares of M/s Ankur International Ltd. at varying rates from Rs. 2.06 to Rs. 3.1 per share and sold them within a short span of six- seven months at the rate varying from Rs. 47.75 paise

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

natural for a subsidiary company to act for the\nbenefit of its holding company. Maximizing shareholders’ wealth is the\nultimate objective of any company.\n65. The investments in VEL by the Assessee yielded significant gains/ value\nto the Assessee and the Assessee was able to support/assist its overseas\ngroup entities to make other investments. It may also be noted that

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR O R D E R % 19.04.2012 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we frame the following substantial question of law: ―Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that short terms capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income

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

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 of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

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

nature of holding is by way of capital assets defined under section 2(14) of the Act and disposal of such capital assets in accordance with the provisions of the Act gives rise to capital gain only. Accordingly, on disposal of such investment, the assessee declared the said income in its return and claimed exemption under section

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR SANJIV KHANNA,J: (ORAL) By the order dated 2nd August, 2011, the following substantial question of law was framed. “Whether Explanation (iii) to Section 48 of the Act can be interpreted without considering the effect of Section 49(1) Explanation and Explanation 1(i)(b) of Section 2 (42A), when all three sections relate to the same

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

natural justice, and procedural irregularity, warranting full relief in favour of the appellant. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing, in the interest of justice.” 5. Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant assessee submitted that ld. CIT(A) erred

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

natural justice. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld.CIT(A) in not only confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 54 of Rs.1,08,23,892/- made by Ld. A.O but also enhancing the same by Rs.23,23,208/- thereby resulting in total disallowance of deduction of Rs.1,31,47,100/- as claimed

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption was claimed in respect of a residential property acquired at Kanpur i.e the "new asset". That other than the "New Asset" the appellant was the legal owner of only one Residential Property at Sky lounge Pune. The L.D A.O however disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption was claimed in respect of a residential property acquired at Kanpur i.e the "new asset". That other than the "New Asset" the appellant was the legal owner of only one Residential Property at Sky lounge Pune. The L.D A.O however disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land on ground\nthat purchaser of land was a builder and thus, sald piece of land was not\nagricultural land, since view taken by Assessing Officer while rejecting\nassessee's claim was not in consonance with requirements made under\nsection 54B, Impugned order passed by him was to be set aside.\"\nHence, once

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gain on sale of shares on basis of\nstatement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other\nproceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross-\nexamine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating\nprinciples of natural justice

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains was due to the reapportionment of the cost of the property, which has been overlooked by the Tribunal. 32. As regards the reference by the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee was not afforded any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, Mr. Sahni submitted that no such cross-examination was required nor were the rules of natural

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

Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground no 8 was not pressed, the same is dismissed as not pressed. Ground no 20 regarding natural justice

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

Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground no 8 was not pressed, the same is dismissed as not pressed. Ground no 20 regarding natural justice