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

13(4) of India – Mauritius treaty the capital gain is not chargeable to tax in India since the I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 shares transferred were purchased in the years 2010 & 2011 i.e. before 01.04.2017. The Assessing Officer not convinced with the submissions of the assessee passed draft order u/s 144C of the Act dated 28.09.2021 proposing to tax the long term capital

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)

13(4) of the tax treaty to the assessees by concluding inter alia that the assessees were nothing but a shell company which had been used as a conduit with the sole objective of avoidance of tax on capital gain arisen on sale of VEL shares. The AO held that the control and management of the assessee company always

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

13(4) of the tax treaty to the assessees by concluding inter\nalia that the assessees were nothing but a shell company which had\nbeen used as a conduit with the sole objective of avoidance of tax\non capital gain arisen on sale of VEL shares. The AO held that the\ncontrol and management of the assessee company always

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

gains from mutual fund units are not covered by Article 13(3A) which pertains to shares.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "10(38)", "112A", "2(42A)", "234B", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether capital

HOME CREDIT INTERNATIONAL A.S.,CZECH REPUBLIC vs. ASSISTANT. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2020-21

Capital gains") for- (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; ………. (iva) the use or right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment but not including the amounts referred to in section 4413B

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)/ 144C(13) of the Act. 2. That the learned AO/ DRP has further erred both in law and on fact in making an addition of Rs. 3,37,202/- representing alleged short term capital gain

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and consequently the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) have grossly erred by denying the appellant, the benefit of Article 13(5) and any other benefits under

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, AY: 2017-18 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Before we proceed to deal with the substantive issues arising in the appeal, it is necessary to observe, a complaint dated 07.04.2023 addressed to the President, Income

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

BHS INDIA HOLDINGS, INC.,NEW JERSEY, USA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1)(2), DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the stay application which is tagged along is dismissed being infructous

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gains by virtue of the CBDT Circular dated 02 May 2016 and based on the factual documents furnished by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings and the proceedings before the Hon'ble DRP, which was not held by the learned AD as ingenuine or spurious 9. The learned AO. In passing the final order under section

SARVA CAPITAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

gains of Rs. 163,26,34,468 on sale of shares of Suryoday Small Finance Bank, Disha Medical Services, Rural Shores Business Services, Veritas under section 112 of the Act, as against under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. b. Taxing interest income of Rs.30,00,000/- as per provisions of the Act as against under Article

SARVA CAPITAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sarva Capital Llc, Versus Acit, Circle 3(1)(2), C/O Dinesh Mehta & Co., Cas, International Taxation, 21, Dayanand Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaccl0102B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Hiren Mehta, Ca & Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit(Dr)

section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment year 2019-20, in pursuance to the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Penal (DRP). 2 2. Grounds Nos. 1, 3 and 7, being general grounds, do not require adjudication. 3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, on instructions, did not press ground

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

144C(S) of the Act without\njudiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to\nthe draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law.\n1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing\nofficer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered\nin favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

HAREON SOLAR SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

gains were held to be chargeable to tax in India.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 143(3)", "Section 144C(13)", "Section 270A", "Section 9", "Section 45", "Section 90"], "issues": "Whether the capital

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147 r.w.s 144C of the Act concluding that the Assessee under the garb of share transaction, has transacted the underlying assets of the company UEM and determined the capital gains by substituting the full value of consideration received by the Assessee (i.e., Rs. 14,25,24,594.16/) with the total capitalized value of tangible assets of the Company

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147 r.w.s 144C of the Act concluding that the Assessee under the garb of share transaction, has transacted the underlying assets of the company UEM and determined the capital gains by substituting the full value of consideration received by the Assessee (i.e., Rs. 14,25,24,594.16/) with the total capitalized value of tangible assets of the Company

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 147 r.w.s 144C of the Act concluding that the Assessee under the garb of share transaction, has transacted the underlying assets of the company UEM and determined the capital gains by substituting the full value of consideration received by the Assessee (i.e., Rs. 14,25,24,594.16/) with the total capitalized value of tangible assets of the Company

THE GOLDEN STATE CAPITAL PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

capital gains of INR 61,71,789/- and taxing the same in the hands of the Appellant in India. 18. That the AO has grossly erred in disregarding the premium paid for calculating cost of acquisition, in complete contradiction to the DRP Directions, thereby violating the mandate of section 144C(13