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 :-

156 taxmann.com 15 (Delhi - Trib.)(13-10-2023) "where AO treated income from sale of shares and securities as business income, while assessee claimed it as exempt long term capital gains, however, Commissioner (Appeal) reclassified it as 'capital 17 gains' citing CBDT Circular No. 6 dated 29-02-2016. Considering shares as investments balance sheet and their long term holding

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

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

Capital Gains on sale of property at Rs.3.9 crores\non 12.03.2020. The invoices and bank details of payments\nand TDS deducted and paid furnished by the appellant has\nnot been examined.\n\nThis ground relates to disallowance of transfer expenses of Rs.\n2340000/- in respect of STCLoss related to property at DLF, Gurgaon.\nAO has mentioned in this connection

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

capital gains taxation by the AO\n6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of\nthe existing arrangement\nPara 11 (page 24-27) ECL\nPara 11 (page 23-25) ECOM\n6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom\nBusiness from Onshore to offshore\nPara 12 (page 27-33) ECL\nPara 12 (page 26-31) ECOM\n6.3 Acquisition

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed at the assessed income of Rs. 33,79,96,690/- after making addition of Rs. 15,46,46,953/- on account of disallowance on Long Term Capital Gain and addition of Rs. 18,20,156

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains on sale of loose diamonds. Subsequently, against the said order passed by the Ld. AO making above addition, appeal was preferred by the assessee which is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 153C r.w.s

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains on sale of loose diamonds. Subsequently, against the said order passed by the Ld. AO making above addition, appeal was preferred by the assessee which is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 153C r.w.s

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains on sale of loose diamonds. Subsequently, against the said order passed by the Ld. AO making above addition, appeal was preferred by the assessee which is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 153C r.w.s

The Commissioner of Income Tax II

Appeal is dismissed

capital gain. Reference was made to Circular No. 471 dated 15th October, 1986 [1986] 162 ITR (Stat.) 41. It was observed that Section 54 of the Act says that assessee could have constructed the house and not that the construction should have necessarily been completed. Noticing that it was not easy to construct a house within the time limit

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

capital gains tax while buying 26% stake from Honda. It was categorically mentioned by the CBDT that the entire tax was deducted and paid at the highest rate by the Hero Group who did not seek any tax concession. 20.2 Ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted that the factum of FIPB approval for foreign direct investment was also in public domain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MEGHA GARG, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Income Tax Officer, Megha Garg, 1707 E-2 Block Civic Centre, 160 Saraswati Vihar Vaishali, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Aecpg7098C Appellant Respondent

156 taxmann.com 605/[2024] 463 ITR 711 (Bombay), the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- "Section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 2(47) of the Act. The AO disallowed the short term capital loss of Rs. 76,12,50,000 claimed by the appellant. In addition to the appellant's submissions, the AR has also submitted the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, who has allowed the short term capital loss claimed by Alona Azalea Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, (AIPL

SANJAY SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD- 2(4), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Singh, Income Tax Officer, Chamber No.64, Tehsil Vs. Ward-2(4), Compound,Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad.Uttar Pradesh. Ghaziabad. Pan: Asxps4165R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anoop Sharma & For Assessee : Shri Sanjay Prashar, Advocates For Revenue : Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr

capital gain chargeable to tax on the sale of property as per the provisions of the Act. 7 ITA.No.420/Del./2020 Shri Sanjay Singh, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not accepting the documents submitted as additional evidence by the appellant under Rule

SANA SHAH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, PANIPAT

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasana Shah, Vs. Ito, 744-745, Model Town, Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bopps2855R

Capital Gains” and not “Income from Other Sources” and is exempt by virtue of Section 10(37) of the Act.” 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. On behalf of the assessee it was submitted that the Ld. Tax Authorities below have fallen an error in not taking into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble Hon'ble Supreme Court

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

capital gains in the other country. 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 71 of 174 48. The Supreme Court further referred to the commentary of Klaus Vogel that Double Taxation Convention establishes an independent mechanism to avoid double taxation through restriction of tax claims in areas where overlapping tax claims are expected, or at least theoretically possible. In other words

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

Capital gains - Profit on sale of property used for residence - Assessment year 2010- 11- Whether assessee's claim of deduction under section 54 should be reckoned from date of handing over of possession of flat by builder to assessee and not date of registration of flat - Held. yes [In favour of assessee]". ➤148 taxmann.com 34, Sanjay Vasant Jumde

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain were duly disclosed in the Income Tax Return and there was nowhere any concealment of income on the part of the assessee. However at a later stage assessee came to know that certain investigations has been undertaken by the SEBI and Income Tax Department according to which it has been ascertained that the company M/s. Surabhi Chemicals & Investment

SANJAY SINGH RANA,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI-20, DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gain and no tax was paid on the transaction. 12. The investigation and enquiry showed that the assessee has actually purchased these shares during the F.Y.2014-15 and has obtained the bogus contract notes reflecting that the shares were purchased in 2009 to claim the benefit of LTCG. Accordingly, the AO reduced the cost of acquisition of Rs.7,78,156