ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

c) In case of a company, even long-term capital gains subjected to levy of STT and exempt under section 10(38), is subjected to tax under section 115JB of the Act. 1.25 What is therefore sought to be emphasized by the appellant is that the source of income under consideration, i.e., capital gains on transfer of shares

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)

section 2 (42A) of the act. Therefore, AO treated shares of Scorpio beverages P Ltd as short-term capital asset and computed the short-term capital gain accordingly. Assessee submitted before the assessing officer that she has borrowed loan for making investment in the shares of Scorpio beverages private limited. Interest of INR 37317628/– has been incurred as expenses during

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

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

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

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Capital Hill Main Road Ranchi Sir, Sub: application for lease of area of 500 acres by m/s. Arcellormitallindian limited mining lease of iron and, manganese ore in West Singhbhum, Meghaburum Karampada RF) Ref: letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of director, mining, Jharkhand In reference to the above letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of the Director Mining Jharkhand it is informed

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

2 (47)(v) of the Act which defines “transfer” inclusively for the purpose of levying capital gains, would be 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 25 of 40 applicable and capital gains would have been declared by the APIL but in view of APIL’s reply, the assessing officer concluded that possession of the land

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gains derived in any manner. To our mind, therefore, the provisions/s, though no doubt a charging provision, is an extension of the deeming provisions of Chapter VI of the Act, laying down the statutory rules of evidence, incorporating the principles of common law jurisprudence. In sum, as also in fine, the provision, brought as an anti-abuse measure, only seeks

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gains derived in any manner. To our mind, therefore, the provisions/s, though no doubt a charging provision, is an extension of the deeming provisions of Chapter VI of the Act, laying down the statutory rules of evidence, incorporating the principles of common law jurisprudence. In sum, as also in fine, the provision, brought as an anti-abuse measure, only seeks

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)

2(24)(vi) and for that purpose we have to read the sub-section strictly. We cannot widen the scope of sub-section by saying that the definition as a whole is inclusive and not exhaustive. In the present case, the words "chargeable under section 45" are very important. They are not being read by the Department. These words cannot

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

The appeals are disposed of

13 of 23 has proceeded on the basis that the division itself constitutes a separate and an independent block of assets. Appendix to the Rules as noticed above, is not a unit/division specific but is rate of depreciation specific, as all assets prescribed the same rate of depreciation are clubbed and are a part of the same block of assets

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

13 of 23 has proceeded on the basis that the division itself constitutes a separate and an independent block of assets. Appendix to the Rules as noticed above, is not a unit/division specific but is rate of depreciation specific, as all assets prescribed the same rate of depreciation are clubbed and are a part of the same block of assets

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

13 of 23 has proceeded on the basis that the division itself constitutes a separate and an independent block of assets. Appendix to the Rules as noticed above, is not a unit/division specific but is rate of depreciation specific, as all assets prescribed the same rate of depreciation are clubbed and are a part of the same block of assets