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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

148 was wholly misconceived, misplaced and untenable. 1.4 That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the learned Assessing Officer has clarified the context of non disclosure of long term capital gain and short term capital gain viz-a-viz para 2 of the reasons which duly captured the position of exempt capital gain overlooks

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

148 was wholly misconceived, misplaced and untenable. 1.4 That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the learned Assessing Officer has clarified the context of non disclosure of long term capital gain and short term capital gain viz-a-viz para 2 of the reasons which duly captured the position of exempt capital gain overlooks

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

148 was wholly misconceived, misplaced and untenable. 1.4 That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the learned Assessing Officer has clarified the context of non disclosure of long term capital gain and short term capital gain viz-a-viz para 2 of the reasons which duly captured the position of exempt capital gain overlooks

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

148 was wholly misconceived, misplaced and untenable. 1.4 That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the learned Assessing Officer has clarified the context of non disclosure of long term capital gain and short term capital gain viz-a-viz para 2 of the reasons which duly captured the position of exempt capital gain overlooks

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

148 was wholly misconceived, misplaced and untenable. 1.4 That the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the learned Assessing Officer has clarified the context of non disclosure of long term capital gain and short term capital gain viz-a-viz para 2 of the reasons which duly captured the position of exempt capital gain overlooks

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

148 and section 144C (13) of the Income Tax Act final assessment order on 25th January 2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 245035012588/– as short-term capital gain chargeable to tax in the hands of appellant taxable at the rate of 40%. Subject to chargeability of surcharge and cess as applicable. Further, Cairn U K Holdings

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

148. Hence, he urged that despite the fact that the notice is of a jurisdictional nature for reopening an assessment, this Court did not find any infirmity in the decision of the Delhi High Court holding that the issuance of a notice to an erstwhile private limited company which had since been dissolved was only a mistake curable under Section

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

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

2,45,000 shares of ‘M/s Pearl Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd’ (‘PRS’) for a consideration of Rs.74,15,54,375/- (a company incorporated in India) held as investment in the books of assessee company to ‘LEI Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd’ (an independent company incorporated in Singapore) and hence have reported Long term capital gain which is exempt from

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

gain. In the appeal proceedings addition was deleted considering appellants arguments that there was no provision in the Income Tax Act to substitute sale consideration with fair market value of a capital asset other than immovable property referred to in section 50C. However it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the real value of shares of Eltek

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

2) in present case, it is submitted that same are based on mere vague information which remains totally un-described and inchoate, that too for mere purpose of scrutiny/verification and examination of long term capital gains disclosed in ITR as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, impugned reopening u/s 148 is made, which as per coordinate bench decision

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)

Section 6(3) of the IT Act India read with Article 4(3) of the Treaty 26 (II) Judicial Dicta on tests for “control and management of affairs 223-239 situated wholly in India” 27 (III) Case of Dual Residence under the Treaty-Applicability of 235-239 Article 4(3) of Indo Mauritius DTAA Part-B-VI - Rebuttal of objections