SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) has been framed on 24-12-2008 assessing the total income of Rs. 72,64,083/-. The AO had made the addition of Rs. 6787654/- on account of treatment of STCG as income from business and disallowance made u/s 14A at Rs 47264/-. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee has filed the appeal before

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 of Rs. 1,17,34,753/- under section 10(38) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. He also added Rs. 2,11,226/- to the income of the assessee being commission @ 1.8% of trade value on account of providing accommodation 3 entries under

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

Section 90(2) of the Act as well as Article 13(4) of the Mauritius DTAA to emphasize that the gains arising from the transaction of sale of shares effected pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement dated 1st March 2011 held by the Petitioner in MIAL would not be liable to tax in India. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that

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

The appeals are disposed of

10 of 23 (Rules, for short) prescribes and states the table of rates at which depreciation is admissible and is divided into different parts and sub headings. Rates of depreciation have been prescribed. Assets of different types which have been prescribed same rate of depreciation have been clubbed and put together. Appendix does not stipulate and provide that each unit

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)

10(38), were sham transactions. It was held that it was a case of bogus long-term capital gain obtained through brokers and that the assessee had used colourable device for avoidance of tax. The receipt of Rs.23,68,313/- was deemed to be income under section 69A. The assessee has contended that 4,000 shares of Kappac Pharma

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 as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly ground of the appellant company is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. Before us, the Ld. CIT(DR) placed reliance on the assessment order and prayed for upholding the finding of the AO as far as taxability of Rs.8,90,66,252/- is concerned

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 as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly ground of the appellant company is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. Before us, the Ld. CIT(DR) placed reliance on the assessment order and prayed for upholding the finding of the AO as far as taxability of Rs.8,90,66,252/- is concerned

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

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)

10 May 2016 and 29 August 2016 further clarify that the amendments made to the India-Mauritius DTAA will be applicable only from A.Y. 2018-19 that too on capital gains arising on the securities purchased after 1 April 2017. 25. Without prejudice to the fact that the said Article 27A does not apply

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

26. Section 27B(16)(b) of the IA clarifies that "assets" means all assets required to be shown in the balance-sheet as per Form A, in Part II of the First Schedule but excludes any items against the head "Other Accounts (to be specified)". Section 27D of the IA also specifies the manner and conditions of investment. Section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

26. Section 27B(16)(b) of the IA clarifies that "assets" means all assets required to be shown in the balance-sheet as per Form A, in Part II of the First Schedule but excludes any items against the head "Other Accounts (to be specified)". Section 27D of the IA also specifies the manner and conditions of investment. Section

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

26. Section 27B(16)(b) of the IA clarifies that "assets" means all assets required to be shown in the balance-sheet as per Form A, in Part II of the First Schedule but excludes any items against the head "Other Accounts (to be specified)". Section 27D of the IA also specifies the manner and conditions of investment. Section

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10 year period of the lease agreement dated 24th February 1994 expired, the land and building reverted to the Assessee and was sold by it to three unrelated parties. The Assessee had sought to bring the above facts on record by filing CM No.19803/2014. However, the said application was dismissed by the Court on 4th February, 2015, on the ground

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10 year period of the lease agreement dated 24th February 1994 expired, the land and building reverted to the Assessee and was sold by it to three unrelated parties. The Assessee had sought to bring the above facts on record by filing CM No.19803/2014. However, the said application was dismissed by the Court on 4th February, 2015, on the ground

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

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

10 of the order\nof my ld. Brother is reproduced as under:-\n“9. From perusal of finding of Ld. CIT(A) in light of grounds of appeal, it is\napparent on record that Ld. AO disputed the use of land for agriculture purpose\nand disallowed deduction under Section 54B of the Act. Ld. AO had\na) Sale deed pertaining

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)

section 48 and he supported the findings of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that various judicial decisions are enclosed in the paper book as under :- (i) CIT vs. Balbir Singh Maini – (2017) 398 ITR 0531 (SC); (ii) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 131 ITR 0597 (SC); (iii) E.D. Sasson & Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT (1954) 26