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

10(38) of the Act specifically provides that the very same long term capital gain which had suffered STT would still become taxable while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Hence it is very clear that the legislature never intended that the long term capital gains which had suffered STT would be completely ITA No. 1212 & 1213/Del/2017

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

10(38) of the Act specifically provides that the very same long term capital gain which had suffered STT would still become taxable while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Hence it is very clear that the legislature never intended that the long term capital gains which had suffered STT would be completely ITA No. 1212 & 1213/Del/2017

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

14 16. Let us now peep into the precedents. 16.1 In Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj (2022) 446 ITR 56(Cal), the AO received information from Investigation Wing that the prices of some shares of penny stock companies which included the company X in which the assessee made investment, were artificially rigged to benefit share holders through bogus claim

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)

ii) alternatively held the stand of the Ld. AO that the same is otherwise assessable under “profit and gain of business and profession”; and (iii) the compensation is taxable as “short term capital gain” and not “Long Term Capital Gain”. 8.3 Assessee had received Rs.33,12,18,930/- from Cinepolis Group on account of relinquishment of rights

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

10,800 shares in AY 2012-13 (page 146 of PB-I). During the impugned assessment year assessee company (being resident of Mauritius) has sold its part shareholding of 2,45,000 shares of ‘M/s Pearl Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd’ (‘PRS’) for a consideration of Rs.74,15,54,375/- (a company incorporated in India) held as investment in the books

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains under Section 45 but not u/s 50 of the Income tax Act?” Background facts 3. The Assessee Teletube Electronics Ltd. („TEL‟) had two divisions i.e. a picture tube division situated at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh and a glass bulb division at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan for manufacturing glass shells/bulbs for domestic use. The said glass bulb division, which had three

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains under Section 45 but not u/s 50 of the Income tax Act?” Background facts 3. The Assessee Teletube Electronics Ltd. („TEL‟) had two divisions i.e. a picture tube division situated at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh and a glass bulb division at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan for manufacturing glass shells/bulbs for domestic use. The said glass bulb division, which had three

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 :-

section 48 of the Act. Therefore we are inclined to decide the issue of claim of administration expenses in favour of the revenue. Ultimately, the assessee may get the benefit of claim of these 12 expenses as business expenditure under the head business income. As such there is no impact for the same in this AY. 14. With regard

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gain (STT) i. Mutual Funds Rs. 64,67,213/- ii. Shares (Rs. 11,73,187/-) iii. PMS Shares Rs. 7,14,85,406/- iv. PMS Mutual Funds Rs. 1,22,86,820/- Rs. 8,90,66,252/- 6.2 Provisions of Section 10

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gain (STT) i. Mutual Funds Rs. 64,67,213/- ii. Shares (Rs. 11,73,187/-) iii. PMS Shares Rs. 7,14,85,406/- iv. PMS Mutual Funds Rs. 1,22,86,820/- Rs. 8,90,66,252/- 6.2 Provisions of Section 10

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)

14 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO artificial transaction in the form of capital gain. Surrounding circumstances differ from the normal share market transactions in which they are ordinarily carried out. Taking all the steps together, final conclusion does not accord with the human probabilities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More held as under

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

The appeals are disposed of

ii) the written down value of the block of assets at the beginning of the previous year ; and (iii) the actual cost of any asset falling within the block of assets acquired during the previous year, such excess shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets ; (2) where any block

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

14)\nand 45 of the Act, any profit on transfer of such property is chargeable\nunder head capital gains and the appellant has disclosed and offered\nfor tax such gain under the head Capital gains. The appellant\nconverted his property being property at 1E/20, Jhandewalan during\nF.Y.16-17 i.e. A.Y.17-18 from stock-in-trade to capital asset. The AO\nhas ignored

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)

14 November 2008 [refer page 1697 of the ITAT Paperbook]. 8. Under an Offshore Underwritten Put Option Agreement dated 24 August 2007 (as amended and restated on 22 September 2009) between Vodafone and Essar, ECML had a put option to sell shares of the Assessee, thereby effectively transferring the VEL shares or procure sale of VEL shares by ECom

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

14 of the Act, the scope of total income provided under Section 5 of the Act has to be read with Section 10 of the Act, which as part of Chapter III of the Act, falls under the heading “incomes which do not form part of Total Income”. So, in any case the income by way of „„Profits and gains

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

14) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

14(2),\nNew Delhi\n\n(Respondent)\n\n\nVaneet Aggarwal,\nD-95,\nPushpanjali Enclave,\nPitampura, Delhi\nPAN: AGXPA8770A\n\n(Appellant)\n\nAssessee by\n\nRevenue by\n\nDate of Hearing\n\nDate of Pronouncement\n\nShri K. Sampath, Adv,\nShri V Rajkumar, Adv.\nMs. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR\n\n21/01/2026\n\n13/03/2026\n\nORDER\n\nPER

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

ii) or clause (iii) [or clause (iv)] of this [sub-section].] …. …..” 8. Section 45 of the Act stipulates that profits and gains arising from transfer of a capital asset affected in the previous year is chargeable to income tax under the heading “Capital gains” and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the said