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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

150 00 434 65,036 65,036 1,36,17,233 Exchange 03/07/08 Purchase d in As per SEBI 12,77,437 59,52,85,642 466 1,48,94,670 open offer open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,442 91,12,828 market 09/03/10

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

150 00 434 65,036 65,036 1,36,17,233 Exchange 03/07/08 Purchase d in As per SEBI 12,77,437 59,52,85,642 466 1,48,94,670 open offer open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,442 91,12,828 market 09/03/10

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

150 00 434 65,036 65,036 1,36,17,233 Exchange 03/07/08 Purchase d in As per SEBI 12,77,437 59,52,85,642 466 1,48,94,670 open offer open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,442 91,12,828 market 09/03/10

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

150 00 434 65,036 65,036 1,36,17,233 Exchange 03/07/08 Purchase d in As per SEBI 12,77,437 59,52,85,642 466 1,48,94,670 open offer open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,442 91,12,828 market 09/03/10

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 taxation by the AO 6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of Para 11 (page 24-27) ECL the existing arrangement Para 11 (page 23-25) ECOM 6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom Para 12 (page 27-33) ECL Business from Onshore to offshore Para 12 (page 26-31) ECOM 6.3 Acquisition

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

capital gain in the hands of family members of the assessee and material was confronted to the assessee. Therefore, it is a case of concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) of the 11 ITA.No.2871/Del./2018 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi. Act. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, held that as no return of income under normal course

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

150 (Cal), Calcutta High Court held that where a taxpayer spends capital gain partly for purchase of another house and partly for further construction on it, he is still entitled to exemption u/s 54. Section 54 contemplates fulfillment of two alternate conditions viz purchase or construction, but where both the conditions are fulfilled within the time stipulated, the taxpayer would

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

capital, transportation, level of the market, i.e. retail or wholesale and so forth. The Rules and the analytical steps. 71. Sub-Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section

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

1 of the Framework Agreement dated 5.7.2007, to confirm the transfer price determined by the parties. Further it would be pertinent to point out as per paragraph 2.2 of Annex - 2 of Consolidated FDI Policy (effective from April 5, 2013), which was applicable during the period in question, price of shares of an unlisted Indian company, transferred by resident

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR (Raj) 59 : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 109 : (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and Nipso Polyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second

M/S. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

sections 2(42A) & 2(42B) with respect to short term capital gains and Instruction No. 1827 dated 31.08.1989, held that the main business of the assessee was trading of shares and therefore, the short term capital gain of Rs.71,23,102/- and long term capital gain of Rs.22,76,029/- totaling to Rs.93,99,131/- earned on entire sale

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. Accordingly Rs.74,487/- (3% of sale value i.e. Rs.24,82,890/- is being added under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition of Rs.25,57,377/-] 11. With these remarks, the total income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 01.08.2009. Later on, the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had claimed to have earned short term capital gain of Rs.81,14,850/- during the year under consideration on account of sales of shares

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

section i. 2005-06 / 24.10.2005 . / Rs. 21,36,130/- 143(1) _ / / (see Page 86 of PB) ii. 2006-07 [ 29.11.2006/ Rs. 13,51,603/- 143(1) (see Page 40 of PB) r? Assessment u/s 143(3/ of the Act was made on 15.12.2008 (see page 66-67 of PB) iii. 2007-08 01.11.2007 143(1

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

section i. 2005-06 / 24.10.2005 . / Rs. 21,36,130/- 143(1) _ / / (see Page 86 of PB) ii. 2006-07 [ 29.11.2006/ Rs. 13,51,603/- 143(1) (see Page 40 of PB) r? Assessment u/s 143(3/ of the Act was made on 15.12.2008 (see page 66-67 of PB) iii. 2007-08 01.11.2007 143(1