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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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 of McDowell

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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 of McDowell

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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 of McDowell

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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 of McDowell

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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 of McDowell

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

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 of McDowell

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 Gains or Business Income — Instructions in order to reduce litigation - reg.- Sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Income

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 Gains or Business Income — Instructions in order to reduce litigation - reg.- Sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Income

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 Gains or Business Income — Instructions in order to reduce litigation - reg.- Sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

Section 48 is as under: Provided further that where long-term capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, other than capital gain arising to a non-resident from the transfer of ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 14

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

Section 2(14) of the Act, the profit arose on transfer of such capital asset is to be treated as long term capital gain

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

14), for excluding the equity shares and unit of equity oriented funds that they are not treated as capital asset. Secondly, any gains arising from transfer of Long term capital asset is treated as capital gain which is chargeable u/s. 45; thirdly, section

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

14), for excluding the equity shares and unit of equity oriented funds that they are not treated as capital asset. Secondly, any gains arising from transfer of Long term capital asset is treated as capital gain which is chargeable u/s. 45; thirdly, section

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 45 itself provide for situations where the AO is permitted to adopt the fair market value for computation of capital gains under the said provisions and there being no statutory mandate the AO was precluded from substituting the actual sale consideration with any notional consideration. 14

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)

gains and was in effect a capital receipt. The relevant extracts of the judgement are reproduced hereunder: "7. We are, therefore, left with the question as to whether the right to claim damages in the instant case is a 'property of any kind and thus, a 'capital asset' under section 2(14

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 245Q(1) before Respondent no.1 to determine the correctness of its belief that the capital gains that arose in the hands of the Petitioner by virtue of the sale of shares held by it in MIAL having regard to the provisions of the India-Mauritius DTAA would not be taxable in India. The Petitioner raised the following question

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

14 of 23 effect the chargeability or taxation under the head short term capital gains. The contention was rejected, inter alia, holding as under:- ―14.6 A clearer indicator of the untenability of, the Revenue’s submission, is demonstrable from the latter part of the provision of section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

14 of 23 effect the chargeability or taxation under the head short term capital gains. The contention was rejected, inter alia, holding as under:- ―14.6 A clearer indicator of the untenability of, the Revenue’s submission, is demonstrable from the latter part of the provision of section