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

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)

10. Commissioner of Income Tax -I vs Niraj Amidhar Surti in Tax appeal no 836 of 2009 the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that “Income Tax : Section 28: Whether In view of the fact that substantial investment of the assessee has been accepted by the department as investment in shares the AO was not justified in assessing small portion

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

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

gains from mutual fund units are not covered by Article 13(3A) which pertains to shares.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "10(38)", "112A", "2(42A)", "234B", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether capital

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

10 October\n2019 passed by the Authority of Advance Rulings which was non binding in nature:\n14. erred in rejecting the without prejudice argument of the Appellant that\nif it is alleged that Essar Communications (Mauritius) Ltd (ECML')\nwas the decision maker and the beneficial owner of the VEL shares,\nthe consequence would be that the capital gains on sale

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

10. So far as the ground relating to depreciation is concerned, the CIT (Appeals) took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. vs. UOI, (1993) 199 ITR 43 and held that in arriving at the real income of the trust, deduction for depreciation cannot be allowed if the capital expenditure incurred in acquiring the asset

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

gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets. 13. The expression ―block of assets‖ means group of assets falling within the assets enumerated in clauses (a) and (b). The clause (a) refers to tangible assets, including building, machinery, plant and clause (b) refers to intangible assets like copyright, know how, trade mark etc. The aforesaid Section does

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

10,13,29,232 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

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)

Section 147 of the Act in the first appeal filed with learned CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06 and hence the finding of the AO has attained finality. Since the said findings of the AO with respect to purchases of 4000 shares of M/s Shiv Om Investment and Consultancy Limited in assessment year 2005-06 have become conclusive

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gain as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly ground of the appellant company is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. Before us, the Ld. CIT(DR) placed reliance on the assessment order and prayed for upholding the finding of the AO as far as taxability of Rs.8,90,66,252/- is concerned

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gain as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and accordingly ground of the appellant company is allowed.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. Before us, the Ld. CIT(DR) placed reliance on the assessment order and prayed for upholding the finding of the AO as far as taxability of Rs.8,90,66,252/- is concerned

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 :-

13-10-2023) "where AO treated income from sale of shares and securities as business income, while assessee claimed it as exempt long term capital gains, however, Commissioner (Appeal) reclassified it as 'capital 17 gains' citing CBDT Circular No. 6 dated 29-02-2016. Considering shares as investments balance sheet and their long term holding period, " In the case

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

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

10(38) which is applicable to LTCG. The Id. A.O. held that the assessee is deriving income from General Insurance Business and also from other business. Therefore, the first category of Income is governed by section 44 of the Income Tax Act whereas second category is covered under section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The same was held