DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3) of the Act are not followed, the trust would lose its exemption entirely, with the result 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 23 of 40 that the assessment of its income will be made according to the provisions of the Act. 23. With the above prefatory observations

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)

13(4) to the Assessee is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 30. The aforesaid position has been clarified by the CBDT vide press release dated 29 August 2016 wherein it has been provided that the amendment made to India-Mauritius DTAA which provides for capital gains arising on transfer of shares on or after 1 April 2017 will

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

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

capital gain thereon is not liable to tax in India in view of Article 13(4) of DTAA between India and Mauritius. Therefore, the assessee contended that assessee sought refund of tax deducted at source by LEI Singapore from the sale consideration of the shares. It was further stated that as per provisions of section 195 r.w.s. 112(1

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

13(4) to the\nAssessee is without jurisdiction and bad in law.\n30. The aforesaid position has been clarified by the CBDT vide press release\ndated 29 August 2016 wherein it has been provided that the amendment\nmade to India-Mauritius DTAA which provides for capital gains arising\non transfer of shares on or after 1 April 2017 will

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)

1) No Capital 51-53 Gain Gain Gain Appeal 20006-07 Capital Business 143(3) Capital Capital 57-66 Gain Gain income Gain 2007-08 Capital Capital 143(3) No Capital 54-56 Gain Gain Gain appeal 2008-09 Capital Business 143(3) Capital Capital 67-75 Gain Gain income Gain 2010-11 Capital Business 143(3) Capital Capital

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

section also\nexempts capital gains arising from a unit of an equity-oriented fund. This\ntreatment of capital gain to both equity shares and units of equity oriented\nfunds logically establish that units of equity funds are analogous/have\nsemblance with the equity shares.\n\n• Thus, the intent of Income Tax Law is very clear to treat the units

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

Section 49(1)(ii) of the Act, the assessee is deemed to have held the asset from 29/1/1993 and deemd to have incurred the cost of acquisition and accordingly made liable for the long 2012:DHC:983-DB ITA No.116/2011 Page 13 of 15 term capital gains

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gains of Rs.17,13,015/- in respect of\nsale of propertybeing D-4, 1st Floor, Vivekanandpuri, Lucknow, a sum of\nRs.22,30,000/- was paid by the assessee for the purchase of the new\nproperty beingN-1, Kailash Colony, Delhi as per the requirement u/s 54\nof the Act. Therefore, as per the provision of section 45(1

ITO,WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. VINOD GUGNANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds of Appeal of the Revenue fails, consequently the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount is to be invested in the said account. If the intention is not to retain cash but to invest in construction or any purchase

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

1)'. Secondly, it must be 'computed in the manner laid down in the Act'. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge." While concluding the issue their Lordships observed that "it may be remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss does not stand

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

1)'. Secondly, it must be 'computed in the manner laid down in the Act'. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge." While concluding the issue their Lordships observed that "it may be remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss does not stand

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)

section 28(iv) of the Act as 'profits and gains of business and profession', alleging the same to be in lieu of professional/ entrepreneurial services. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding (in alternate) that compensation arising for alleged transfer of rights is taxable as short-term capital gains and not long-term capital

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

The appeals are disposed of

1) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the assets. (2) Written down value of the block assets at the beginning of the previous year. (3) Actual cost of the assets falling within the block of assets acquired during the previous year. 16. Thus, under Section 50 short term capital gains is payable in case after

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

13,29,232 Ltd. Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of ABN Amro 2,93,99,990 Securities Pvt. Ltd. Short Term Capital Gain 2,02,28,140 Total 1,21,87,78,509 17. Now, it has been well settled that if the shares which has been acquired and treated as investment from day one and held

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

13(3) of Indo-UAE treaty and therefore capital gain cannot be brought to tax in India. In doing so 23 Saket Kanoi he followed the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation), Range 1(2) vs. Green Emirate Shipping & Travels 100 ITD 203 (Mum) ITAT

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 :-

Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and only following expenses are eligible to be deducted from the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head capital gains: 1. Which are incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Capital assets and 2. The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto

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

capital gain of Rs. 1,17,34,753/- under section 10(38) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. He also added Rs. 2,11,226/- to the income of the assessee being commission @ 1.8% of trade value on account of providing accommodation 3 entries under