ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives or\nseparate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n\n(c) The trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

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)

120 (plus any amount withheld from any interest paid on the put option price) towards tax deducted at source in respect of capital gains tax on the sale and transfer of the put option shares provided that such withheld amount is deposited with the relevant tax authorities in accordance with the terms agreed between the parties. "(Emphasis supplied) From this

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

capital gains only. (xi) It is the prerogative of the parties to the agreement to decide upon their terms and considerations and unless there is any stipulation to the contrary the will and intention of the parties shall only prevail. There is no bar in the law on fixing different phases for the different years. (xii) It is trite

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

120 ITR 46/2 Taxman 541, however, gave it a wider meaning and it was held that the payment made for execution of release deed by the brother thereby joint ownership became separate ownership for price paid would be covered by the word 'purchase'. It was observed that the word 'purchase' used in Section 54 of the Act should be interpreted

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

B) notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the\nOffshore agreement (including, but not limited to, clauses 4.\nJ and 4.4 of the offshore agreement) and notwithstanding the\nprovision of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between\nIndia and Mauritius, Vodafone or Vodafone s nominee or\nVG Pic as Guarantor can deduct from the payment of the put\noption price

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

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

b) Based on preliminary findings, the whole time member of Securities and Exchange Board of India , vide an interim order dated June 29, 2015, restrained 254 entities from accessing the securities market and from buying, selling or dealing in securities, either directly or indirectly, in any manner, till further directions were passed in the matter of IPO of certain companies

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)

b) Copy of ledger account of the assessee maintained in the books of the broker "Shri Parasram Holdings Pvt. Ltd." evidencing the payment of sale consideration to the bank account of the assessee from the broker. 8. Subsequently, the Id. AO issued show cause notice dated 22.12.2017 wherein he had alleged the assessee's long term capital gain earned from

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI vs. DLF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

120 I.T.A. No. 4435 & 2503/D/2019, 16/Del/2016, 9227/Del/2019 (1) The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. Section 80-IAB – Deductions in respect of profits and gains by an undertaking

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

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

4 Azizul Ghani (AY: 2015-16) 8. That the entire assessment and appellate order suffers from non-application of mind, denial of natural justice, and procedural irregularity, warranting full relief in favour of the appellant. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or during

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

B. Vasanta, CIT(DR) ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 26/06/2022 for Assessment Year 2018- 19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “ 1. That the learned Assistant

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

4) is also with reference to the undertaking. A business might have several undertakings and section 28 does not envisage computation of income of each such undertaking. In other words, the profits of the business of the undertaking cannot be computed in isolation. The profits are computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", as under

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

4) is also with reference to the undertaking. A business might have several undertakings and section 28 does not envisage computation of income of each such undertaking. In other words, the profits of the business of the undertaking cannot be computed in isolation. The profits are computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession", as under

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

4 Mahesh Kumar the assessee who held the shares. It was further submitted that the assessee had earned a profit on sale of shares and treated the same as capital gain and that the reasons for non-payment of balance amount due and security to M/s Consortium Securities (P) Ltd. was the mutual understanding between the assessee and the share

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

B. Our attention, in this regard, was drawn to the following relevant extracts of the valuation report issued by Kotak regarding the valuation methodology followed for valuing different downstream companies. “Background CGP, as a shareholder of SBP, has requested Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd. (‘ KMCC’) to carry out an equity valuation of SBP as of February 28, 2014 (“Valuation Date

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

4 SCC 272 (SCC paras 42- 45) ; State Level Committee v. Morgardshammar India Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 108 ; Novopan India Ltd. v. CCE & Customs [1994] Supp (3) SCC 606 ; A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mill Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2007) 2 SCC 725 and Reiz Electrocontrols (P.) Ltd. v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order