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

10% through AGL. That, despite this, the Bidvest group changed its routing of funds through the Petitioner through Mauritius, the Petitioner company being a shell company without any tangible assets, employees, office space etc. being incorporated a few days before the bidding. It has no management experts or financial advisers on its pay roll or on hire. That

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)

section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961. The said claim of long terms Capital gain of Re 63,01,425/- as exempt income has formed 8 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO the very basis for the selection of the case for scrutiny in CASS. The grounds being interrelated are disposed of together. 5.1.1 It was also noted by the AD that

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

46,489/- under section 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this issue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an enhancement of income to an extent of Rs. 274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible

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

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

46,489/- under section 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this issue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an enhancement of income to an extent of Rs. 274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible

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

46,489/- under section 10(34). He has elaborately discussed this issue from Para 6 onwards and ultimately made an enhancement of income to an extent of Rs. 274,11,65,844/- the amount which was allowed by the Assessing Officer as exempt under section 10. The contention of the CIT (A) was that the assessee was not eligible

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

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

CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,HISSAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

46,88,046/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the Income-tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 2018-19. 4. On the basis of the above information, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2022. In response, the assessee filed a return on 22.08.2022 declaring income from other sources amounting

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

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

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

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

Capital Gain Account Scheme: • Narayan Ravi Prakash Vs. ITO, WP No. 8936 of 2022, Karnataka HC • Venkata Dilip Kumar Vs. CIT, [2019] 419 ITR 298 (Mad), Madras HC • CIT Vs. K Ramachandra Rao, ITA No. 494 & 495 of 2013 & 46 & 47 of 2014, Karnataka HC • Shri Krishnamoorthy Vijayaraghavan Vs. ITO, ITAT Chennai, ITA No. 1976/CHNY/2025, ITAT Chennai • Sarita Gupta

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

10,50,000 36,19,468 2008-09 18,23,041 36,19,468 2009-10 24,19,291 44,46,265 2010-11 26,42,657 43,04,208 2013-14 7,11,893 8,80,159 2017-18 *29,01,946 29,01,946 Total 1,30,48,828 2,15,28,790 As per Emaar MGF statement

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

section 143(3) has disallowed the indexedcost of acquisition/ improvement to the tune of Rs.15,46,46,953/- and recomputed the long term capital gain at Rs. 28,43,67,705/- as against the long term capital gain of Rs. 12,97,20,752/- declared by the assessee. 7. That aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the applicant

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

46 ITR 144, where the Supreme Court had held that income or gain is chargeable to tax on the basis of the real income earned by an assessee, unless specific provisions provide to the contrary. The Bombay High Court noted that in the case before it, the real income (capital gain) would be computed only by taking into account