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)

163-174 2010- 11 &FY 2011-12 21 (IX) Board minutes of FY 2010-12 and FY 2011-12 are of doubtful 175-179 authenticity [submissions on without prejudice basis] 22 (X) ITD Profile of residential status of key management personnel 180-181 (XI) Control and management in India during FY 2011-12 - based 182-195 on Board minutes provided

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

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

ITO,WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. VINOD GUGNANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds of Appeal of the Revenue fails, consequently the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

capital gain account he cannot be denied with the benefit of section 54(1) of the Act. 11. The above view has been fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Ramachandra Rao 56 taxmann.com 163

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

section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956, it is mandatory for every\ncorporate-assessee to strictly follow the aforesaid accounting standards.\nThe appellant has consistently followed the Accounting Standard 13 and\nvalued the investments at cost and not at lower of cost or net realizable\nvalue. The accounting treatment followed by the assessee has always been\naccepted by the Revenue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response

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

capital gain of Rs. 163,26,34,468/- u/s 112 of the Act @ 10%, in pursuance to directions of DRP as against the returned income of Rs. 16,94,79,930/- 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the La. AO has erred in assuming jurisdiction under section

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

163 wherein it is held that if the intention was to invest in either purchase or construction of a residential house, then the conditions under section 54F and under section 54 relating to deposit of money under capital gains

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

163 taxmann.com 612. 5. Per Contra, the ld. DR argued in favour of the order of the ld. AO. It was vehemently argued that M/s PMC Fincorp is a penny stock company and that therefore the assessee has indulged in sham transaction and obtained bogus capital gains income. 6. We have heard rival submissions in the light of materials available

ANIL DUA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -10, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Dua Vs. Pcit -10 F-13, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan :Aacpd8370L (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain out of the income on sale of property and deduction under Section 54 claimed thereon does not and cannot arise at all. On revision order passed under Section 263 of the Act is, therefore, not legally sustainable and liable to be quashed. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Delhi in the case of PCIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

163 to 78 of PB-IV). 26. On appraisal of the reasons recorded under section 148(2) and approval thereon under section 151 of the Act and in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the assessee, it is noticed that the case has been reopened on the last date of the limitation period for two reasons, namely, accommodation

NORWEST VENTURE PARTNERS X - MAURITIUS,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

Capital Gain of Rs.3,02,30,69,163/- was not offered to tax by the assessee claiming exemption under Article 13(4) of India Mauritius DTAA. 5. While examining assessee’s claim of exemption under Article 13(4) of the tax treaty, the Assessing Officer called for various information and details. While analyzing the facts and details brought on record

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

AJAY KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

capital gains arisen on sale of shares of M/s. CCL International Ltd., the facts of the case would have been investigated properly by the AO. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Paville Project Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021 order dated 06.04.2023 had stated that the scheme of the Income

SHOBHA JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

163/- 03 10000 02.06.2014 3,18,167/- 04 5000 03.06.2014 1,57,992/- Total 19,31,961/- 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that such transaction has been made through the registered broker M/s Bonanza Portfolio (P) Limited and the assessee filed the copy of contract note of the said broker. The AO examined the details

BHARTI GUPTA RAMOLA

The appeal is allowed

gains. Revenue preferred an appeal and by the impugned order has succeeded before the tribunal. The findings of the Assessing Officer has been restored. 6. In order to appreciate the controversy and to answer the substantial question of law mentioned above, we are required to examine and interpret Section 2(29A) and Section 2(42A) of the Act, which read

PARVEJ,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Parvej, Vs. Ito, C/O M/S Sanjeev Anand & Ward-2(1), Associates, Ghaziabad. 77-Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Dkkpp4804A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Mithalesh Km. Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2022 Order

capital gain on sale consideration chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and, therefore, notice u/s 148 may be issued. 8. Further, from the reassessment order dated 05.12.2016, I clearly note that in the first para, the AO noted that as per AIR information, the assessee had sold immovable property and there

GREEN INFRA WIND FARM ASSET LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 10(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Green Infra Wind Farm Asset Ltd., Vs Acit, 5Th Floor, Tower C, Building No.8, Circle-10(2), Dlf Cyber City, Gurugram, New Delhi. Haryana-122002. Pan-Aaecg4080H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ca & Shri Biren Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

163 (Kar.). 5. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue vehemently supports the orders of the lower authorities and submits that Ld.CIT(A) has discussed this issue in details and finally concluded that the expenditure being not in accordance with the provision of Act and there is no reasonable certainty about the incurrence of the event

JCIT(OSD), NEW DELHI vs. MANISH VIJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshjcit, Vs. Manish Vij, A-1,/ 134, 1St Floor, Sk (Osd), Delhi Enclave, South West Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagpv7555H

gain arising on sale of these shares were duly reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee. To support the transfer price, the assessee submitted a valuation report obtained from Independent Chartered Accountants wherein, the value of shares of CGPL was worked out at Rs. 54,959.62 per share as on 20.04.2021 in accordance with Rule 11UA