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)

Section 6(3) of the IT Act India read with Article 4(3) of the Treaty 26 (II) Judicial Dicta on tests for “control and management of affairs 223-239 situated wholly in India” 27 (III) Case of Dual Residence under the Treaty-Applicability of 235-239 Article 4(3) of Indo Mauritius DTAA Part-B-VI - Rebuttal of objections

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

Section 45 is that the\nproperty transferred must be a capital asset on the date of\ntransfer and that it is not necessary that it should have been\ncapital asset also on the date of its acquisition by the\nassessee. Thus this decision directly answers the question\nraised and concluded. This has been followed in a subsequent\ndecision reported

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

gain has arisen on account of transfer of rights in respect of shares, the date of acquisition has to be 29.12.2014, as there is no other date, event or document correlating the acquisition. 13. Learned counsel submitted, as per section 2(42A) of the Act, a short term capital asset is an asset held by an assessee for not more

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

capital gains liability. 19. Key judicial precedents settling the said view are as under:  Ramcharan Das v. Girijanandini Devi: AIR 1966 SC 323 (SC) [Pg.43-53@52/ CLPB] 29  Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation: 3 SCC 119 (SC) [Pg.54-77@60-63/ CLPB]  Ziauddin Ahmed v. CGT: 102 ITR 253 (Gauhati) 20. It is reiterated that legal position has been explained

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

capital gains not under the head income from\nBusiness.\n36. The next issue is whether the CBDT circular be applied prospectively or\nretrospectively, we observed that this issue was already addressed by the Hon’ble\nCalcutta High Court in the case of Century Plyboards I Ltd (supra), wherein it was\nheld that CBDT Circular 6/2016 dated 29/2/2016 would be applicable

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

MIH INDIA (MAURITIUS) LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain being the holding company at Netherlands, the provisions of India – Netherlands Tax Treaty would apply. It is necessary to examine the validity of the aforesaid reasoning of the Assessing Officer. Undisputedly, the assessee was incorporated in Mauritius in the year 2006. It is not disputed that the assessee had been carrying on investment activity in India as well

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

capital gains tax liability in India. This circular was a dear enunciation of the provisions contained in the DTAC, which would have overriding effect over the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by virtue of section 90(1) of the Act. If, in the teeth of ITA Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 And Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 Leapfrog

LEAPFROG FINANCIAL INCLUSION INDIA (II) LTD,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Dey, Vice-Ita Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 (Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2020-21) & Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Leapfrog Financial Vs. Acit Inclusion India (Ii) Ltd., Circle – 2(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, C/O Axis New Delhi Fiduciary Ltd., The Axis 26 Cybercity, Ebene, Mauritius - 72201 Pan No. Aaccl 8541 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Anmol Anand, Adv. Ms. Priya Tandon, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2023

capital gains tax liability in India. This circular was a dear enunciation of the provisions contained in the DTAC, which would have overriding effect over the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by virtue of section 90(1) of the Act. If, in the teeth of ITA Nos.365 & 366/Del/2023 And Stay Application No.85/Del/2023 Leapfrog

MUKUL RANI THAKUR,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain (“LTCG”) and made addition of INR 97,37,300/ and made addition of INR 97,37,300/- at estimated sale at estimated sale consideration based on kachchi parchi consideration based on kachchi parchi. The income was accordingly . The income was accordingly, assessed at INR 1,04,36,200/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. As per para

BRANDIX MAURITIUS HOLDINGS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1)(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

capital gains under the provisions of the Act. The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other, and the grounds of appeal raised along with the captioned appeal.” 4. We have carefully perused the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee mentioned hereinabove. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation

SAPIEN FUNDS LTD,MAURITIUS vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains arising in India on sale of shares as per paragraph 4 of article 13.” I.T.A. No. 2890/Del/2022 Circular : No. 789, dated 13-4-2000. 37. The aforesaid circular has been a subject matter of interpretation by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi wherein the circular was held to be ultra vires of the provisions to Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

119 of PB - IV). Proposition 3: Reopening not permissible on wrong premise i.e. wrong noting of facts in reasons not permissible. 19 DCIT v. Manish Uppal AO records factually incorrect fact and figure regarding the escapement of income amounting to Rs. 3,43,63,040/-, whereas, the assessee had declared long term capital gain