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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious means under the garb of tax planning. vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious means under the garb of tax planning. vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious means under the garb of tax planning. vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious means under the garb of tax planning. vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 28(va) of the Act. 2.2 For the sake of convenience, the findings recorded by the Ld.AO in this regard are being extracted as below – 3. Long term capital gains from sale of shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd:- During the relevant previous year, the assessee has sold 24800 shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd (MIPL). These

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain referred in para 3.2 to 3.5. 5. That the learned AO has erroneously stated that the reasons mentioned in the order may be treated as satisfactory for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particular of income with respect to the additions made. 6. That

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

132(1) of the Act, the provision of section 153A of the Act could not be applied in a case where no incriminating evidence or material Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO had been found in search, the additions made were beyond the scope of section 153A of the Act. 2 That learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -27, New Delhi

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. He submitted that the ITAT ignored the facts revealed in the survey that was undertaken in the premises of the Assessee on 28th January 1997. The survey made it plain that only the possession of plant and 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. He submitted that the ITAT ignored the facts revealed in the survey that was undertaken in the premises of the Assessee on 28th January 1997. The survey made it plain that only the possession of plant and 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. He submitted that the ITAT ignored the facts revealed in the survey that was undertaken in the premises of the Assessee on 28th January 1997. The survey made it plain that only the possession of plant and 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132

M/S. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 14A by the Assessing Officer for calculation of income which does not form part of the total income. The assessee had submitted detailed calculation before the ld. CIT(A), in which he has already disallowed a sum of Rs.1,05,329/- whereas the Assessing Officer has mentioned in his order only Rs.971/-. The ld. CIT(A) after discussing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” In ITA No.948/2008, 707/2008 and 706/2008 (Asha Kedarnath Gupta, Rohit Kedarnath Gupta and Nitin Kedarnath Gupta respectively), no substantial questions of law have been framed because the assessment in these cases were made on protective basis

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” In ITA No.948/2008, 707/2008 and 706/2008 (Asha Kedarnath Gupta, Rohit Kedarnath Gupta and Nitin Kedarnath Gupta respectively), no substantial questions of law have been framed because the assessment in these cases were made on protective basis

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” In ITA No.948/2008, 707/2008 and 706/2008 (Asha Kedarnath Gupta, Rohit Kedarnath Gupta and Nitin Kedarnath Gupta respectively), no substantial questions of law have been framed because the assessment in these cases were made on protective basis