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

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

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

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

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

5 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. Page 6 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. Page 7 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. Page 8 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. (C) The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 29.01.2010 of Ld. CIT(A) confirmed

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

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

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

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

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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

132 of 2002 Page 3 of 32 (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in holding that the transaction is chargeable to capital gains under Section

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

132 of 2002 Page 3 of 32 (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in holding that the transaction is chargeable to capital gains under Section

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

132 of 2002 Page 3 of 32 (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in holding that the transaction is chargeable to capital gains under Section

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

5. There was total average investment of Rs.16,50,67,554/-. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that investment in shares, securities, investments in subsidiary company in which dividend received is exempt and capital gain on sale of shares is also exempt. He also contended that on investment in partnership firm, the assessee had received interest of Rs.84

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

capital gains or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response

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 or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response

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 or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response