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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13,61,460/– resulting into total sale consideration of RS. 1 ,08,67,20,413/– has the cost of acquisition of RS. 8,194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13,61,460/– resulting into total sale consideration of RS. 1 ,08,67,20,413/– has the cost of acquisition of RS. 8,194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13,61,460/– resulting into total sale consideration of RS. 1 ,08,67,20,413/– has the cost of acquisition of RS. 8,194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13,61,460/– resulting into total sale consideration of RS. 1 ,08,67,20,413/– has the cost of acquisition of RS. 8,194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13,61,460/– resulting into total sale consideration of RS. 1 ,08,67,20,413/– has the cost of acquisition of RS. 8,194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13,61,460/– resulting into total sale consideration of RS. 1 ,08,67,20,413/– has the cost of acquisition of RS. 8,194/- and therefore the long-term capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the act is amounting to RS. 1, 08,67,12,219/–. 14. Further the learned assessing officer asked details of the immovable

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

capital gain or business income’ is in dispute and if certain facts are being pointed out from the material already on record, then the same can always be examined to see, whether it was acquired for the purpose of investment or for the purpose of trading. Thus, objection raised by the ld. CIT-DR is rejected. 21. The next issue

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

capital gain or business income’ is in dispute and if certain facts are being pointed out from the material already on record, then the same can always be examined to see, whether it was acquired for the purpose of investment or for the purpose of trading. Thus, objection raised by the ld. CIT-DR is rejected. 21. The next issue

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

capital gain or business income’ is in dispute and if certain facts are being pointed out from the material already on record, then the same can always be examined to see, whether it was acquired for the purpose of investment or for the purpose of trading. Thus, objection raised by the ld. CIT-DR is rejected. 21. The next issue

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 112 of the Act, which is wholly unwarranted and untenable in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee-appellant had discharged its onus to prove that it is a resident of Mauritius with the Management & Economic substance in Mauritius

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)

8. Written submissions of the ECL/Ecom and analysis Para 43 (page 164-177) ECL and rejection of arguments by the CIT(A) Para 43 (page 161-173) ECOM 9. Non-applicability of paragraph 4 of Article 13 under Para 44-47 (page 177-179) India Mauritius Treaty- Application of Section 6(3) ECL of the Indian Income Tax Act, Article

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

capital gain would arise as held in Brindavan Beverages Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, S.N. Ladhani Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [321 ITR 197]. ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 8 of 22 10. Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on the other hand, highlighted the fact that the entire Sonepat division

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)

capital gain of Rs 67,87654/-. Apart from that, the assessee has also shown income from dividend which has been claimed as exempt income. 4. The assessee has filed return of income, declaring at Rs.72,16,819/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section 143(3) has been framed on 24-12-2008 assessing

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)

8. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on facts in treating the gains as Short Term Capital Gains on the premise that these shares were a part of design to hold interest in Hutchison/ Vodafone group and transferring them at their will and hence, they should not get the benefit of Long Term Capital gains (LTCG) before

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

8. It is clear from the questions of law as formulated, the dispute, as to whether profits which have accrued to the assessee on the transfer of Sonepat Unit are to be treated as long term capital gain or short term capital gain, whereas the Revenue holds that these profits are in the realm of short term capital gain. Answering

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

8\n(page 19-21) ECOM\n5.\nSummarising the analysis of the AAR\nPara 9 (page 22-24) ECL Para 9\n(page 21-23) ECOM\n6.\nFacts and circumstances leading to the conclusion of capital gains taxation by the AO\n6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of\nthe existing arrangement\nPara 11 (page

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

8. From the conjoint reading and plain understanding of all these sections it can be seen that, firstly, shares in the company are treated as capital asset and no ITA No. 1212 & 1213/Del/2017 Mr. Tarun Sawhney exception has been carved out in section 2(14), for excluding the equity shares and unit of equity oriented funds that they

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

8. From the conjoint reading and plain understanding of all these sections it can be seen that, firstly, shares in the company are treated as capital asset and no ITA No. 1212 & 1213/Del/2017 Mr. Tarun Sawhney exception has been carved out in section 2(14), for excluding the equity shares and unit of equity oriented funds that they