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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

12. The learned assessing officer considering the reply filed by the assessee rejected the same mainly for the following reasons:- i. according to board’s circular number 768 of 1998, FIFO method should be applied to demat account in order to compute cost of acquisition and capital gain ii. according to provisions of section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

12. The learned assessing officer considering the reply filed by the assessee rejected the same mainly for the following reasons:- i. according to board’s circular number 768 of 1998, FIFO method should be applied to demat account in order to compute cost of acquisition and capital gain ii. according to provisions of section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

12. The learned assessing officer considering the reply filed by the assessee rejected the same mainly for the following reasons:- i. according to board’s circular number 768 of 1998, FIFO method should be applied to demat account in order to compute cost of acquisition and capital gain ii. according to provisions of section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

12. The learned assessing officer considering the reply filed by the assessee rejected the same mainly for the following reasons:- i. according to board’s circular number 768 of 1998, FIFO method should be applied to demat account in order to compute cost of acquisition and capital gain ii. according to provisions of section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

12. The learned assessing officer considering the reply filed by the assessee rejected the same mainly for the following reasons:- i. according to board’s circular number 768 of 1998, FIFO method should be applied to demat account in order to compute cost of acquisition and capital gain ii. according to provisions of section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

12. The learned assessing officer considering the reply filed by the assessee rejected the same mainly for the following reasons:- i. according to board’s circular number 768 of 1998, FIFO method should be applied to demat account in order to compute cost of acquisition and capital gain ii. according to provisions of section

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

12 months it does not straight away put in the bracket of trading activity, especially when there is no repetitive transaction of the shares. However in so far as detail of Short Term Capital Gain is concerned, the assessee has filed voluminous detail which has been neither examined or looked upon by the Assessing Officer

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

12 months it does not straight away put in the bracket of trading activity, especially when there is no repetitive transaction of the shares. However in so far as detail of Short Term Capital Gain is concerned, the assessee has filed voluminous detail which has been neither examined or looked upon by the Assessing Officer

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

12 months it does not straight away put in the bracket of trading activity, especially when there is no repetitive transaction of the shares. However in so far as detail of Short Term Capital Gain is concerned, the assessee has filed voluminous detail which has been neither examined or looked upon by the Assessing Officer

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)

12 months, therefore, the capital gain was offered to tax as long term capital gain. The provision of section 2(42A) as applicable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

capital gain was computed on the block of assets as a whole. However, he neither considered the conveyance deeds, relied upon by the assessee, nor on the detailed written submissions of the assessee, arguing that Section 50 of the Act was not applicable. The CIT(A), no doubt, examined these documents and the submissions of the assessee. He, however, held

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

capital gain would arise as held in Brindavan Beverages Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, S.N. Ladhani Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [321 ITR 197]. 2010:DHC:6300-DB 10. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on the other hand, highlighted the fact that the entire Sonepat division was sold as a going concern – lock

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

12. On 10th February, 2012, Petitioner filed an application under section 245Q(1) before Respondent no.1 to determine the correctness of its belief that the capital gains

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

section 70(3). 10. Coming to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. (supra), the issue involved there was, whether the loss on transfer of capital asset being units US 64 Scheme of Unit Trust of India can be allowed and entitled to carry forward the same for set off of in subsequent

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

section 70(3). 10. Coming to the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. (supra), the issue involved there was, whether the loss on transfer of capital asset being units US 64 Scheme of Unit Trust of India can be allowed and entitled to carry forward the same for set off of in subsequent

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)

12,980 received by the appellant from Thymelicus Holding B.V [shareholder of Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd. ('CIPL')] is taxable as 'salary' under section 17 of the Act, as against long-term capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gain would be payable. The block of assets will mean the ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 12 of 23 assets carrying the same rate of depreciation. 18. Section