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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

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)

capital asset if it is held for not more than thirty-six months. However, in the case of share of an unlisted company or a unit of a Mutual Fund specified under clause (23D) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, which is transferred during the period beginning on 1st April, 2014 and ending on 10th July

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

iii) At the time of transfer, the employees along with statutory liabilities relating to them, were transferred. (iv) There is no evidence or material on record to show that any part of the sale consideration was attributed to depreciable assets or any other asset. (v) The learned AO as well as learned CIT(A) have attributed the entire sale consideration

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

iii) At the time of transfer, the employees along with statutory liabilities relating to them, were transferred. (iv) There is no evidence or material on record to show that any part of the sale consideration was attributed to depreciable assets or any other asset. (v) The learned AO as well as learned CIT(A) have attributed the entire sale consideration

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

25 lakhs for violation of various provisions of SEBI Act and Rules. Again vide order dated 22.04.2022 under section 15-I of SEBI Act, SEBI imposed a further penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs upon the company and its directors/key persons for preferential allotment of shares just prior to filing of prospectus for IPO on 13.01.2013 in violation of extant rules

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

iii) Relevant Articles of India - Mauritius DTAA, post amendment, wherein, on reading Article 13(3A), it becomes clear that the said amendment is only applicable for investments made after 01.04.2017, whereas, in the case of assessee - appellant investments were made much prior to 01.04.2017. Thus, still provision of Article 13(4) will apply and the capital gain

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted