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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital gain disclosed RS. 108.53 1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed

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

10,13,29,232 Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2,93,99,990 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

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

10,13,29,232 Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2,93,99,990 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

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

10,13,29,232 Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. 2,93,99,990 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

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

13 of 71 Submissions on behalf of the Revenue 15. At the outset, Mr Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue contended that the decision of the Tribunal to recall its earlier order dated 25th June, 2004 was patently erroneous. He pointed out that the only reason on account of which the Tribunal had recalled its earlier order

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

section 195 r.w.s. 112(1)(c)(iii) M/s LEI Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd. has withheld tax @10% + SC + EC. It was, however, submitted that as per provisions of Article 13(4) of India – Mauritius treaty the capital gain

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)

10 October 2019 passed by the Authority of Advance Rulings which was non- binding in nature: 14. erred in rejecting the without prejudice argument of the Appellant that if it is alleged that Essar Communications (Mauritius) Ltd (ECML') was the decision maker and the beneficial owner of the VEL shares, the consequence would be that the capital gains on sale

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

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)

13. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law in not appreciating that the provisions of subsection (1A) to (4) of section 45 itself provide for situations where the AO is permitted to adopt the fair market value for computation of capital gains under the said provisions and there being no statutory mandate the AO was precluded from substituting

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

10 of 22 Total Income‟ starts with Section 14 which delineates „Heads of Income‟. These „heads of income‟ are thereafter categorized from various parts, i.e., from (A) to (F). Income arising out of capital gains is one such head discussed in (E) starts from Section 45 and goes up to Section 55A of the Act. Section 45 defines capital gains

GIRISH BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

capital gains. Therefore, the AO justified in bringing the amount to tax under Section 10 (3) of the Act. Present appeals 12. While admitting the present appeals on 14th February 2005, the Court framed the following question of law for consideration in ITA 136 of 2003: “Whether in the facts of the case the amount received covered under Section 10

GYANENDRA BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

capital gains. Therefore, the AO justified in bringing the amount to tax under Section 10 (3) of the Act. Present appeals 12. While admitting the present appeals on 14th February 2005, the Court framed the following question of law for consideration in ITA 136 of 2003: “Whether in the facts of the case the amount received covered under Section 10