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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

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

10,13,29,232 Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2,93,99,990 Short Term Capital Gain 2,02,28,140 Total 1,21,87,78,509 17. Now, it has been well settled that if the shares which has been acquired and treated as investment from day one and held

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

10,13,29,232 Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2,93,99,990 Short Term Capital Gain 2,02,28,140 Total 1,21,87,78,509 17. Now, it has been well settled that if the shares which has been acquired and treated as investment from day one and held

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

10,13,29,232 Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2,93,99,990 Short Term Capital Gain 2,02,28,140 Total 1,21,87,78,509 17. Now, it has been well settled that if the shares which has been acquired and treated as investment from day one and held

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

capitals gains under Section 45 (5) (b) of the Act and by virtue of Section 10 (37) of the Act is not chargeable to tax. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), [2009] 182 Taxman 368 (SC) wherein the Court made the following observations

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

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

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)

23 months). The assessee had offered the gains arising from sale of such shares as 'long term capital gain' which has been re-characterized/re-classified as short term capital gains by the Revenue authorities. At this stage, it would be quite relevant to refer to the relevant provisions under the Act. First of all, Sub-section (29A) of Section

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

23 inquiry has to be made, viz.; whether the receipt is casual and non- recurring. Since capital gains are brought within the tax net under Section 45, they cannot fall in Section 10

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

23 inquiry has to be made, viz.; whether the receipt is casual and non- recurring. Since capital gains are brought within the tax net under Section 45, they cannot fall in 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

10/- per share and 23 after one year sold the same at Rs. 476/- to Rs. 503/- per share. The AO found that CSL had been duly investigated by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and found that the same was a bogus company engaged in arranging for bogus long term capital gain. Accordingly, the AO denied exemption under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains and not in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV-D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose