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 gains\nof Rs.310,80,53,009/- pertained to sale of units of mutual funds acquired prior\nto 01/04/2017 and hence, in respect of such gains, Article 13(3A) cannot be\napplicable. The relevant extract of the submissions of the assessee which were\nagain reasserted by ld. Sr. Counsel is reproduced as under:-\n\n• \"It is imperative to note

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

gain. 20. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC): In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced the relevant part of the order of CIT (Appeals) wherein he observed that in the assessment order the AO referred to the general modus operandi of bogus accommodation entry and thereafter, he has further referred to statement of parties

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)

Gain (STCG) on sale of shares, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL). It was observed that loss on sale of the shares was due to issue of bonus shares of these companies. He observed that assessee had sold shares after receiving the bonus shares and claimed the Short Term Capital Loss, claimed

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)

Gain (STCG) on sale of shares, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL). It was observed that loss on sale of the shares was due to issue of bonus shares of these companies. He observed that assessee had sold shares after receiving the bonus shares and claimed the Short Term Capital Loss, claimed

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

capital gain and resultant tax liability in accordance with section 112(1)(c)(iii) of the Act read with Rule

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 10(38) on\nlong-term capital gains earned by assessee on sale of shares and treated\nsame as bogus, since Assessing Officer did not show any material to back\nits conclusion of treating LTCG as bogus and, further, shares were traded\non stock exchange after paying securities transaction tax and money was\nreceived through proper banking channels which demonstrated

CPI INDIA I LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, INT.TAX. CIRCLE-1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2016-17 . Cpi India Ltd., Vs. Acit, C/O- Vasa Chauhan & International Taxation, Associates Off. No. 41, Circle -1(2)1), 3Rd Floor, High Life Premises, Delhi P.M. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai Pan :Aadcc1505G (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain in respect of sale of shares by applying the provisions of first proviso to section 48 of the Act read with Rule 115A. He observed that while doing so, the assessee has not followed the provisions contained under section 112

ACIT, CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INVEST CORP., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 48 of the Act being the proportionate subscription price of shares and proportionate interest and other expenses capitalized in earlier years at Rs. 209.36 crores. Ld. Counsel submitted that, however, the assessing officer instead of computing the capital gain on sale of shares as disclosed by the assessee proceeded to frame assessment as under: (i) Rs. 940 crores being

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 48 of the Act being the proportionate subscription price of shares and proportionate interest and other expenses capitalized in earlier years at Rs. 209.36 crores. Ld. Counsel submitted that, however, the assessing officer instead of computing the capital gain on sale of shares as disclosed by the assessee proceeded to frame assessment as under: (i) Rs. 940 crores being

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

112/- and hence, at the end of the previous year for the relevant assessment year, the „block of assets‟ within the meaning of Section 50(2) of the Act was available as on 31.03.1998; the Assessing Officer did not deviate from his view. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the capital gain

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains under Section 112 of the Act and addition made thereon in the hands of the assessee enhancing the income

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains under Section 112 of the Act and addition made thereon in the hands of the assessee enhancing the income

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains under Section 112 of the Act and addition made thereon in the hands of the assessee enhancing the income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains. (c). All the witnesses whose statements were recorded by the Assessing Officer in the course of the search proceedings were retracted for valid reasons and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on them. (d). The findings recorded by the Tribunal in para 2.15 of its order in the case of Kedarnath Gupta, particularly the finding that the vendors

BIGSTAR HOTELS RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NEW DELHI

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

gain in accordance with the provisions of section 50CA of the Act, one has to follow the provision of Rule 11UA of I.T. Rules.\n14. In the present case, the assessee has obtained the valuation report from the merchant banker where the FMV was determined at net asset value as provided in Rule 11UA(1)(c)(d) of the Rules

SARVA CAPITAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital gain of Rs. 163,26,34,468/- u/s 112 of the Act @ 10%, in pursuance to directions of DRP as against the returned income of Rs. 16,94,79,930/- 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the La. AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

section 112 of the Act to be applied on the long term capital gains arising from the impugned transaction of sale

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

section 112A, inserted by Finance Act, 2018, w.e.f. 01.04.2019. 6.6. He further elucidated that assessee is a habitual investor having portfolio of investment in shares and has earned capital gain both in preceding and succeeding years. Ld. Counsel referred to the details of investment and capital gain in preceding and succeeding years which is extracted below