MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

5 of the Act in support of the contention that it excludes the Baroda business of the assessee and the losses of that business cannot be set off against the profits of the business in India, and the appellant can succeed only on establishing that the proviso clearly and without any ambiguity excludes the Baroda business. We agree with

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

5 of the Act in support of the contention that it excludes the Baroda business of the assessee and the losses of that business cannot be set off against the profits of the business in India, and the appellant can succeed only on establishing that the proviso clearly and without any ambiguity excludes the Baroda business. We agree with

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 54BC in the Bonds of NABARD, and the profit of purchase and sale of shares or investment in mutual fund was always shown on capital account, that is, capital gains either short term or long term, and that the same was accepted as such in earlier years. ++On a perusal of the assessment order, it appears that the main

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

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains. He held that Section 50 did not permit the said approach adopted by the Assessing Officer. He also referred to Circular No. 464 dated 23rd September, 2006 issued by the Board. 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 5 of 23 9. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (tribunal, for short) by the impugned order has affirmed

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)

11 (Guj) wherein it was held that -the right to sue for damages is not an actionable claim, which is incapable of being transferred. Thus, any sum received by the assessee by way of compensation does not qualify as 'consideration in lieu of a transfer'. Resultantly, such compensation would not be amenable to tax under the head of capital gains

INDIAN GOLF UNION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E) WARD 2(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed ex parte

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Indian Golf Union Vs. Ito (Exemption) C1/52, 3Rd Floor, Ward 2(3), Hauz Khas Village Road, New Delhi Safdurjang Development Area Pan No. Aaatt3232B (Appellant) (Respondent)

5) of section 11 of the Act. 10 Aforesaid view of the Bench is fortified by the following findings of Mumbai Bench in M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust versus Addl. Director of Income Tax (Exemp.) ITA No. 1301/Mum./2018 decided on 10/3/22 ; “6.6 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present case

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 :-

5 “I have carefully considered the appellant submissions, judicial pronouncement quoted by the Appellant and Assessment Order. It is a fact on the record that the Ld. Assessing Officer has contended that various expenses like Salary, Administrative, Depreciation etc. shall not be permissible under the head Capital gain as per the provision of Section 48 of the Income

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

5. Ld. CIT (A) also discussed the provisions of Section 10(23C)(iv) & (v) and observed that, once the income of Educational institution are exempted u/s.10(23C), then legislature does not intend to give same benefit in Sections 11 & 12 again. According to him there is no conflict and overlapping between the provision contained in Sections 11

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

5 of 17 Park, New Delhi Less: - Transfer Expenses - Index Cost of Acquisition F.Y. 2000-02 90,00,000 X (497/406) 2001-02 58,00,000 x (497/426) 1,10,17,241 67,66,667 1,88,00,429 Long-term Capital Gain 2,83,99,571 6. It may be seen from the computation that the assessee computed

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)

5. Summarising the analysis of the AAR Para 9 (page 22-24) ECL Para 9 (page 21-23) ECOM 6. Facts and circumstances leading to the conclusion of capital gains taxation by the AO 6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of Para 11 (page 24-27) ECL the existing arrangement Para 11 (page 23-25) ECOM

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Appeal is disposed of

11 that the profits and gains from transfer of a capital asset by compulsory acquisition was chargeable under the head „capital gains‟. Section 45(5

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)

11 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO 5.9 In the instant case, all the above features are present in the transaction of shares made by the assessee. Moreover, there is also a specific information that assessee is indulged in non- genuine & bogus capital gain obtained from the transactions of purchase and sale of shares of M/s Shiv Om Investments & Consultancy

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

5 of 15 (ii) Under a gift or will; (iii) (a) By succession, inheritance or devolution, or (b) On any distribution of assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals, or other association of persons, where such dissolution had taken place at any time before the 1st day of April, 1987, (c) On any distribution of assets

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

11 consistent view in assessments pertaining to such income. It has, accordingly, been decided that the income arising from transfer of unlisted shares would be considered under the head ‘Capital Gain', irrespective of period of holding, with a view to avoid disputes/litigation and to maintain uniform approach. 3. It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied

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

11,226/- u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” Ground No. 2 and 3 are only arguments in support of ground No. 1(a) and ground No. 1(b) 3. The facts relating to ground No. 1(a) are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, other sources and capital gain which she claimed exempt

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5 of 32 cause notice („SCN‟) requiring the Assessee to explain why the lease agreement should not be treated as a transaction in the nature of sale of the movable/depreciable assets and capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5 of 32 cause notice („SCN‟) requiring the Assessee to explain why the lease agreement should not be treated as a transaction in the nature of sale of the movable/depreciable assets and capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March

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