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

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

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 not chargeable to tax under section 45 fall outside the definition of the word "income" in section 2(24). It is true that section 2(24) is an inclusive definition. However, in this case, we are required to ascertain the scope of section 2(24)(vi) and for that purpose we have to read the sub-section strictly

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of the said property on the basis of material available on record. 88. The Article 265 of the Constitution of India lays down that no tax shall be levied except by authority of law. Hence, only legitimate tax can be recovered and even a concession or acquiescence by an assessee does not give authority

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of the said property on the basis of material available on record. 88. The Article 265 of the Constitution of India lays down that no tax shall be levied except by authority of law. Hence, only legitimate tax can be recovered and even a concession or acquiescence by an assessee does not give authority

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of the said property on the basis of material available on record. 88. The Article 265 of the Constitution of India lays down that no tax shall be levied except by authority of law. Hence, only legitimate tax can be recovered and even a concession or acquiescence by an assessee does not give authority

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DATAVISION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Acit, Vs. Datavision Systems P Ltd, Circle-10(1), 203, Pragati House, New Delhi 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaacd3381N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143 (3) has accepted the income from capital gains and has not made any adjustment on this account. In view of this it is submitted that income shown by the assessee on sale of shares is as investor and not as a Trader and therefore required to be charged under the head capital gains only and not business 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

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

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

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Capital Company Ltd. (‘ KMCC’) to carry out an equity valuation of SBP as of February 28, 2014 (“Valuation Date”) and provide the price per share of SBP, in relation to the proposed acquisition of shares of SBP that CGP does not already own from the Sellers. SBP, through a series of companies in the HoldCo Chain, is an indirect shareholder

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

Sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provide that capital gains arising on transfer of a long-term capital asset shall not be charged to tax to the extent specified therein, where the amount of capital gain is invested in a residential house. In the case of purchase of a house, the benefits available if the investment

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 10(38) on\nlong-term capital gains earned by assessee on sale of shares and treated\nsame as bogus, since Assessing Officer did not show any material to back\nits conclusion of treating LTCG as bogus and, further, shares were traded\non stock exchange after paying securities transaction tax and money was\nreceived through proper banking channels which demonstrated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

149, 184): Capital gains exemption on investment in specified bonds. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

149, 184): Capital gains exemption on investment in specified bonds. The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MALVIKA INVESTMENTS & SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2010-11

149 (Mad). It was in the light of these decisions that the CBDT Circular No. 4/2007, was issued, indicating the principles applicable in this regard. These criteria are: ITA517-12 Page 6 (1) Intention of the assessee at the time of purchase of the shares. This can be found out from the treatment given to the purchase in the assessee

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

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the\nterm "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee,\nwhether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include\nany stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards\nshares and other securities, the same can be held either

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4A) on the basis of these two statements. It is a matter of the record - duly noted by the CIT (A) as well as ITAT that the three companies or business concerns whose monies were supposed to have been reflected in the handwritten ledgers (Bondwell Insurance Brokers, E-Synergy Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. and Paradigm Advertising) were all concerns

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. GULAB SUNDRI BAPNA

Appeal is disposed of

149 ITR 29, observing that the tenancy right had no cost of acquisition and, therefore, capital gains cannot be computed. Faced with the aforesaid decisions, Section