SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income Tax under Section 139 of the Act and that would include extended period to file return in terms of Sub Section 4 of Section 139 of the Act.” The relevant finding of the Hon’ble High Court

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

9( 1) but as specified in section 139(4) i.e., 31-7-2007 - Whether due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 and, if a person had not furnished return of previous year within time allowed under sub-section (1), assessee could file

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

9( 1) but as specified in section 139(4) i.e., 31-7-2007 - Whether due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided under sub-section (4) of section 139 and, if a person had not furnished return of previous year within time allowed under sub-section (1), assessee could file

CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

capital gain invested/utilized till the filing of the return by the Assessee on 29th March, 2014 under Section 139(4) of the Act, hence ordered accordingly. 9

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain, or loss accrues to the assessee. Further the Page 9 of 29 argument of the assessee that appellant recorded the diminution in the value of investment because of the RBI guidelines dated 9/11/2000 which mandated the financial institutions to not to record any income on securities if the principal or interest is in arrears and required to classify

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain, or loss accrues to the assessee. Further the Page 9 of 29 argument of the assessee that appellant recorded the diminution in the value of investment because of the RBI guidelines dated 9/11/2000 which mandated the financial institutions to not to record any income on securities if the principal or interest is in arrears and required to classify

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

9. The aforesaid ratio is being followed and accepted since 1986. It will not be fair and in the interest of justice to interfere/alter the said interpretation and interpret beneficial provision differently after almost two decades. 10. The Supreme Court recently in Civil Appeal No. 11003/2013, Arasmeta Captive Power Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Lafarge India (P.) Ltd., decided on 12th

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income Tax under Section 139 of the Act and that would include Page 14 of 21 ITA 3092/Del/2024 extended period to file return in terms of Sub Section 4 of Section 139 of the Act.” The relevant finding

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains of business or profession‖. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the computation would have to be made in accordance with Chapter IV D. The Tribunal stated that if the starting point of the computation of the total income was only the revenue relatable to India, then, only the proportionate expenses relating to India should have been deducted rather than deducting

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

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

139(1) of the Act declaring income of Rs. 11,80,381/- for the instant assessment year, wherein he had claimed exemption of Rs. 9,52,493.73/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. This exemption represented long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The original return stood accepted as such. The AO, while denying

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains of business or profession", — ( in the a case of ) any assesse e — ( any interest (not being interest on a loan issued i for public subscription before the 1st day of ) April, 1938), royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable,— Sanjeev Gupta Vs. Addl. CIT, ( outside India; or A ) ( in India

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)

capital gains taxation by the AO 6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of Para 11 (page 24-27) ECL the existing arrangement Para 11 (page 23-25) ECOM 6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom Para 12 (page 27-33) ECL Business from Onshore to offshore Para 12 (page 26-31) ECOM 6.3 Acquisition

RRPR HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gains or capital loss in the original return. The AO also noted that as per section 139(3), for entitlement of carry forward of losses arising in the current assessment year, the loss return has to be necessarily filed within the time allowed for filing return under S 139(1) whereas in the instant case, the capital transactions resulting

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

capital gain balance of Rs. 33,21,868/- as on 31.03.2012 and disallowing exemption of Rs. 11,49,116/- under section 54 of the Act for the reason that the assessee paid Rs. 21,72,752/- only before due date of filing original return i.e. 31.07.2012 towards properties purchased before due date of filing belated return i.e. 31.03.2014. This contention