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

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)

capital gain of ^56,55,874/- belonging to Shri Ashok Kumar Tyagi, as his personal income. CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer. CONTENTIONS Representative assessee cannot be assessed in his individual capacity in respect of income of the person represented by him a) Section 160(1) defines 05 categories of representative assessees in respect of the particular incomes

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

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)

section 28(iv) of the Act as 'profits and gains of business and profession', alleging the same to be in lieu of professional/ entrepreneurial services. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding (in alternate) that compensation arising for alleged transfer of rights is taxable as short-term capital gains and not long-term capital

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

163 Taxman 19 (All). Even as per the provisions of section 164(2) of the Act read with its proviso, only such part of the income so diverted within the meaning of section 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d) of the Act would be taxable in the hands of the trust / society. Even the CBDT had come out with

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

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

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

163,763) Income from Capital Gain Short Term Capital Gain 1,04,31,946. Long Term Capital Loss to be carried Forward 5,54,28,693 Income from Other Sources 2,18,80,434 Gross Total Income 2,01,54,617 ITA No. 3076 & C.O. No. 318/Del/2012 4 Less : unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years 13,90,60,056 Balance unabsorbed

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 account scheme would not apply. Since the assessee before us made investment of Rs. 35,04,400/- which was more than

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

1) Where shares were purchased by assessee on floor of stock exchange and not from broker, payment was made through banking channel, deliveries were taken in DEMAT account where shares remained for more than one year, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on stock exchange, there was no reason to add capital gains as unexplained cash credit

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NARMIL INFOSOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Narmil Infosolutions Pvt. Circle-17(2), Ltd, New Delhi C/O Aar & Associates, Ca 701-702, Rg Trade Tower, Netaji Subash Place, Pitampur, New Delhi Pan : Aabcn9307R (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain, arising in the hands of the Cyprus company, on purchase of shares from it by the assessee, without deduction of tax at source, holding assessee as the Representative assessee of the Cyprus company under Section 163(1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” In ITA No.948/2008, 707/2008 and 706/2008 (Asha Kedarnath Gupta, Rohit Kedarnath

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” In ITA No.948/2008, 707/2008 and 706/2008 (Asha Kedarnath Gupta, Rohit Kedarnath

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

163 , the Supreme Court while holding that that reduction of share capital by company paying a part of the capital would result in extinguishment of proportionate right in shares held by shareholder in terms of Section 2(47) of the IT Act, observed as follows: “Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act defines „transfer‟ in relation to a capital

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

163 , the Supreme Court while holding that that reduction of share capital by company paying a part of the capital would result in extinguishment of proportionate right in shares held by shareholder in terms of Section 2(47) of the IT Act, observed as follows: “Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act defines „transfer‟ in relation to a capital

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” In ITA No.948/2008, 707/2008 and 706/2008 (Asha Kedarnath Gupta, Rohit Kedarnath