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

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

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

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

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

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)

10,09,02,358/-, as part of the cost of acquisition/actual cost while calculating capital gains on sale of shares of SBPL. 22. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in observing that there was no direct nexus between the interest bearing borrowed funds and investment in shares of SBPL. Disallowance of brought forward long term capital

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

30,613. In the subsequent revised return the Assessees deleted the amount shown as capital gains. A note was furnished stating "Return has been revised due to the reason that the amount received by virtue of decree passed by Supreme Court, was wrongly treated as Capital Gain Income." 7. The revised returns were picked up for scrutiny. In the course

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

30,613. In the subsequent revised return the Assessees deleted the amount shown as capital gains. A note was furnished stating "Return has been revised due to the reason that the amount received by virtue of decree passed by Supreme Court, was wrongly treated as Capital Gain Income." 7. The revised returns were picked up for scrutiny. In the course

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)

30 A.Y. and 2005-06 order passed u/s. 143 (1) and A.Y. 2008-09 by the order passed by CIT- Appeals. 4. Those provisions of section 234B are not applicable in the case of the appellant. 5. That the impugned appellate order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and the violation of rudimentary principle of contemporary jurisprudence. 6. That

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

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

30,61,732/-. The AO in his order of assessment has split the income by way of long term capital gain to subject Rs. 1,15,00,752/- to tax as business income and reduced the long term capital gain to nil figure after taking deduction u/s. 54EC into account. The assessee is aggrieved by the illegal action

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

30, 1994, the CBDT had issued circular no.682 in which it had been emphasized that any resident of Mauritius deriving income from alienation of shares of an Indian company would be liable to capital gains tax only in Mauritius as per Mauritius tax law and would not have any capital gains tax liability in India. This circular was a clear

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

capital gain of Rs. 9,52,494/- in his return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 35,30,874/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee, apart from