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

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

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

14) of the Act. Mr. Vohra pointed out that Section 50B was a special provision for computation of capital gains

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

14) of the Act. Mr. Vohra pointed out that Section 50B was a special provision for computation of capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

Capital Gains under section 48 of the Act. Therefore we are inclined to decide the issue of claim of administration expenses in favour of the revenue. Ultimately, the assessee may get the benefit of claim of these 12 expenses as business expenditure under the head business income. As such there is no impact for the same in this AY. 14

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 earned by Mauritian residents was contrary to the provisions of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAA. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the CBDT was correct in issuing the aforesaid circular directing the Assessing Officers that wherever the TRC is issued by the MRA, the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA is available to the taxpayer. 14

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

sections": [ "143(3)", "2(14)", "45", "48", "55(2)", "28(via)", "10(38)", "24(b)" ], "issues": "Whether the property converted from stock-in-trade to a capital asset was correctly treated as a capital asset, and if related expenses (stamp duty, interest) are allowable for computing capital gains

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

capital gain of Rs. 1,17,14,346/- on sale of shares of M/s. HPC Biosciences Limited which the assessee claimed as exempt under section

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

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

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

Section 49 of the Act where the assessee is deemed to have incurred the cost of acquisition. Therefore, if the object of the legislature is to tax the gains arising on transfer of a capital acquired under a gift or will by including the period for which the said asset was 2012:DHC:983-DB ITA No.116/2011 Page 14

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

14 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO artificial transaction in the form of capital gain. Surrounding circumstances differ from the normal share market transactions in which they are ordinarily carried out. Taking all the steps together, final conclusion does not accord with the human probabilities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More held as under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

gains arising from the transfer of short term capital assets, irrespective of the period of holding. The primary condition for the applicability of Section 50 of the Act is that the asset transferred should be a depreciable asset on which depreciation was actually allowed under the Act. It is necessary in this connection to also read Section 2(11) which

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of assessee is allowed

capital gains\nof Rs.310,80,53,009/- pertained to sale of units of mutual funds acquired prior\nto 01/04/2017 and hence, in respect of such gains, Article 13(3A) cannot be\napplicable. The relevant extract of the submissions of the assessee which were\nagain reasserted by ld. Sr. Counsel is reproduced as under:-\n\n• \"It is imperative to note

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains\namounting to Rs.19,59,57,813/- for taxation as per the above computation.\nI. From Latika Dutt: Purchase of land property on 03/10/2016 from Latika Dutt\nof 12 Bigha 14 Biswa bearing Khasra Nos. 298/1 (7-0) 298 MIN (2-09),\n1820/297 MIN EAST (2-11) and 1819/297 MIN WEST (0-14) in Asola Tehsil\nSaket, New Delhi

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

GAINS OR BUSINESS INCOME - INSTRUCTIONS IN ORDER TO REDUCE LITIGATION CIRCULAR NO.6/2016 [F.NO.225/12/2016-ITA-II], DATED 29-2-2016 1. Sub-section (14) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital