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

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

37. It is clear from the aforesaid that capital gains derived by a resident of Mauritius by alienation of shares of companies shall be taxable in Mauritius only and will not have any capital gains tax liability in India. 38. Further, reliance was placed upon another Circular No.789 dated 13th April 2000 issued by the CBDT which clarified that companies

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

37, Centrum Plaza, DLF Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) PAN: BRAPS1366P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. & Ms. Shaurya Jain, CA Department by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 11.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 28.10.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

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

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

37,202/- representing alleged short term capital gain as against claim of long term capital loss of Rs. 81,42,760/- on sale of capital asset by the appellant in the instant year. 2.1 That the learned AO/DRP has failed to appreciated that appellant had acquired the capital asset in the shape of right in an office space

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

37,16,049/- under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also computed book loss at Rs.2,18,28,09,334/- u/s. 115JB of the Act after making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Profit on sale of investments - Rs. 10,27,94,88,259/- Interest not recognized as (b) Income - Rs. 80,52,21,000/- (c) Disallowance of Depreciation

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of assessee is allowed

capital gain and siphoning out the gains to tax heavens, cannot\nbe ruled out. There can be no rigging of the price or artificial appreciation of the\ncapital gains.\n\n17. Thus there is no doubt left that under the Indian Laws, the shares and\nmutual fund both are different forms of securities and investment in both of\nthem have

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, 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

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

ITO, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. CHAMAN, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

gain from compulsory acquisition of agricultural land being capital asset is exempt from tax under section 10(37) of the Act. 6.4 The Ld. AR pointed

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 54B', which is reproduced as under:-\nCondition\nTesting the conditions of Sec 54B\nWhether\nfulfilled\nRemarks\n1\ncapital gain arises from\nthe transfer of a capital Yes\nasset being land\nSale of Agricultural land of area 37 Bighas 15 Biswas\nin village Asola, New Delhi 110074 on 07/12/2015 for\na value of Rs. 100 Crore by the assessee

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

10 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 acquire the legal title over shares was acquired by the assessee vide assignment deed dated 29.12.2014, which is specifically mentioned in the Termination Agreement dated 01.02.2017. Thus, he submitted, once it is accepted that the capital gain has arisen on account of transfer of rights in respect of shares, the date

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

10(38) of the Act; and income from dividend at Rs. 36,54,02,368/-, the Ld. AO arrived at the conclusion that the assessee is carrying on business of trading in shares. Accordingly, he taxed the LTCG of Rs. 4,06,51,736/- declared by the assessee as its income from business in his assessment order dated

SAIF PARTNERS INDIA IV LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION-3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gain taxation as provided in the Act. Please find enclosed the notes to computation (also furnished earlier) as Annexure 3 for detailed description in relation to transactions undertaken during the year under consideration. Further, the Company is a non-resident as per the provisions of the Act and does not create a permanent establishment in India for the relevant

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

37-40); • Commissioner of Income Tax vs H.K. Kapoor (1997) 65CCH 0674 Allahabad High Court (CLC Page No. 41-43). The Ld. AO made the following adverse observations: - a) The sale proceeds of the property in 2011 cannot be utilized for purchase of Plot in 2007 (page no.4 of the assessment order). b) Construction cost was met from borrowed funds

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

Capital Gains." However, Section 10(37) overrides Section 45 of the Act in cases where agricultural land is compulsorily acquired