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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee is a director of NDTV limited and holding a substantial stake and is in a position that she can influence the decision

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee is a director of NDTV limited and holding a substantial stake and is in a position that she can influence the decision

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee is a director of NDTV limited and holding a substantial stake and is in a position that she can influence the decision

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee is a director of NDTV limited and holding a substantial stake and is in a position that she can influence the decision

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee is a director of NDTV limited and holding a substantial stake and is in a position that she can influence the decision

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee is a director of NDTV limited and holding a substantial stake and is in a position that she can influence the decision

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

capital gains under section 11(1 A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The investment in land is a prescribed and approved mode of 11 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon. investment for Trusts as per Section 11(5

M/S. SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

capital gains under section 11(1 A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The investment in land is a prescribed and approved mode of 11 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon. investment for Trusts as per Section 11(5

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

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

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

11 of 39 court with the direction that it will not be disbursed till further orders of this Court. Thereafter on 9th March, 1988 after noticing that the compensation amount had already been deposited it was directed by the Division Bench that the undisputed amount be paid to Mr. J.N. Dhamija without any guarantee and the disputed amount be paid

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

11 of 39 court with the direction that it will not be disbursed till further orders of this Court. Thereafter on 9th March, 1988 after noticing that the compensation amount had already been deposited it was directed by the Division Bench that the undisputed amount be paid to Mr. J.N. Dhamija without any guarantee and the disputed amount be paid

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

11 of 39 court with the direction that it will not be disbursed till further orders of this Court. Thereafter on 9th March, 1988 after noticing that the compensation amount had already been deposited it was directed by the Division Bench that the undisputed amount be paid to Mr. J.N. Dhamija without any guarantee and the disputed amount be paid

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

11 of 39 court with the direction that it will not be disbursed till further orders of this Court. Thereafter on 9th March, 1988 after noticing that the compensation amount had already been deposited it was directed by the Division Bench that the undisputed amount be paid to Mr. J.N. Dhamija without any guarantee and the disputed amount be paid

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

5,60,76,607/- Capital Gain: `36,89,23,393/-“ 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that whether it was a slump sale or not was of no consequence and therefore, various case laws cited by the assessee in support of this proposition were not applicable. The learned counsel referred to the judgment in the case of Commonwealth Trust

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. INDIAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

capital was directly aligned with its objectives and was made in compliance with the directions of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting [hereafter „MIB‟] and the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [hereafter „TRAI‟]. It was submitted that the funds were deployed solely to fulfill its objectives and not for earning any income, interest, or profit, and thus

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)

5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in treating the gains arising from sale of unlisted shares of M/s. Scorpio Beverages Pvt. Ltd. as „short term capital gain‟, instead of long term capital gain returned by the Appellant. 6. That the CIT(A) erred in law in observing that for unlisted shares to qualify