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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 of the paper book amounting to RS. 1,085,300,000/- as long-term capital gain. Referring to the decision of 85 TTJ 285 referred by the learned departmental representative, he stated that in para number 15 nothing was conveyed to the assessing officer in that particular case, therefore there was no dictate in that decision. However

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 of the paper book amounting to RS. 1,085,300,000/- as long-term capital gain. Referring to the decision of 85 TTJ 285 referred by the learned departmental representative, he stated that in para number 15 nothing was conveyed to the assessing officer in that particular case, therefore there was no dictate in that decision. However

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 of the paper book amounting to RS. 1,085,300,000/- as long-term capital gain. Referring to the decision of 85 TTJ 285 referred by the learned departmental representative, he stated that in para number 15 nothing was conveyed to the assessing officer in that particular case, therefore there was no dictate in that decision. However

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 of the paper book amounting to RS. 1,085,300,000/- as long-term capital gain. Referring to the decision of 85 TTJ 285 referred by the learned departmental representative, he stated that in para number 15 nothing was conveyed to the assessing officer in that particular case, therefore there was no dictate in that decision. However

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 of the paper book amounting to RS. 1,085,300,000/- as long-term capital gain. Referring to the decision of 85 TTJ 285 referred by the learned departmental representative, he stated that in para number 15 nothing was conveyed to the assessing officer in that particular case, therefore there was no dictate in that decision. However

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 of the paper book amounting to RS. 1,085,300,000/- as long-term capital gain. Referring to the decision of 85 TTJ 285 referred by the learned departmental representative, he stated that in para number 15 nothing was conveyed to the assessing officer in that particular case, therefore there was no dictate in that decision. However

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

15,41,96,869/- by treating long term capital gain and short-term capital gain as business income. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made u/s. 14A from Rs. 57.64 lacs to Rs. 32.14 lacs. Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief

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

15,41,96,869/- by treating long term capital gain and short-term capital gain as business income. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made u/s. 14A from Rs. 57.64 lacs to Rs. 32.14 lacs. Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief

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

15,41,96,869/- by treating long term capital gain and short-term capital gain as business income. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made u/s. 14A from Rs. 57.64 lacs to Rs. 32.14 lacs. Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub- section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

10 of 22 Total Income‟ starts with Section 14 which delineates „Heads of Income‟. These „heads of income‟ are thereafter categorized from various parts, i.e., from (A) to (F). Income arising out of capital gains is one such head discussed in (E) starts from Section 45 and goes up to Section 55A of the Act. Section 45 defines capital gains

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

15). An income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ' total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in Section 4(1)'. Secondly, it must be 'computed in the manner laid down in the Act'. If either of these conditions fails, the income will

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

15). An income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ' total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in Section 4(1)'. Secondly, it must be 'computed in the manner laid down in the Act'. If either of these conditions fails, the income will

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)

15,67,64,689 on 09.08.2012) and these shares have been sold by the assessee on 21.03.2014. Since the period of holding was more than 12 months, therefore, the capital gain was offered to tax as long term capital gain. The provision of section 2(42A) as applicable for the AY 2014-15 provides that share of a company, whether

GIRISH BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

capital gains. Therefore, the AO justified in bringing the amount to tax under Section 10 (3) of the Act. Present appeals 12. While admitting the present appeals on 14th February 2005, the Court framed the following question of law for consideration in ITA 136 of 2003: “Whether in the facts of the case the amount received covered under Section 10

GYANENDRA BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

capital gains. Therefore, the AO justified in bringing the amount to tax under Section 10 (3) of the Act. Present appeals 12. While admitting the present appeals on 14th February 2005, the Court framed the following question of law for consideration in ITA 136 of 2003: “Whether in the facts of the case the amount received covered under Section 10

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

SECTION 50[2] Sale consideration received on transfer of lamp division at Sonepat ` 42,50,00,000/- WDV of lamp division ` 5,15,75,131/- Less: Value of land ` 17,93,417/- ` 4,97,81,714/- Add: Indexation of land: 1793417x351 100 `62,94,893/- `5,60,76,607/- Capital Gain: `36,89,23,393/-“ 9. Learned counsel

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

capital Gain earned by the assessee on sale of scrip of M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd during FY2014-15 is genuine and eligible for benefit of section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961? 2. The company M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd, its promoter directors and other entities were investigated by SEBI for market manipulation and fraudulent trading in violation of Prevention