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

NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital asset if it is held for not more than thirty-six months. However, in the case of share of an unlisted company or a unit of a Mutual Fund specified under clause (23D) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, which is transferred during the period beginning on 1st April, 2014 and ending on 10th July

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 and was in essence a capital receipt. j. The New Delhi Bench of AAR in the case of Lead Counsel of Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF), In re: [2016] 381 ITR 1 held that Settlement amount received for surrender of capital asset of 'right to sue' has to be treated as 'capital receipt' not liable

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

164. 3. That the Ld. AO/DRP has grossly erred in adopting the amount of capital gain accrued to the appellant at Rs. 7,31,67,675 as against declared capital gain of Rs. 90,93,355 as declared in return of income, thus, enhancing the income by Rs. 6,40,74,320. 3.1 That the Ld. AO though computed

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital of that concern, the exemption under section 11 or section 12 shall not be denied in relation to any income other than the income arising to the trust or the institution from such investment, by reason only that the funds of the trust or the institution have been invested in a concern in which such person has a substantial

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

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gains which have been accepted by the A.O. Wife of the assessee also sold her share in the property in reference which have been accepted by the Department under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and till date no action under section 147/148 have been taken. He has submitted that in the similar circumstances when claim

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 35(1)(vi) and the value at which the assets were taken over by the assessee is as under: Particulars WDV as on 31.3.2004 Value at which (under IT Act without taken over by taking into consideration assessee 100% dep. As (R&D) Building 36,68,570 66,00,000 Leasehold improvements 7,098 ------- Plant and Machinery 1

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 35(1)(vi) and the value at which the assets were taken over by the assessee is as under: Particulars WDV as on 31.3.2004 Value at which (under IT Act without taken over by taking into consideration assessee 100% dep. As (R&D) Building 36,68,570 66,00,000 Leasehold improvements 7,098 ------- Plant and Machinery 1

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 35(1)(vi) and the value at which the assets were taken over by the assessee is as under: Particulars WDV as on 31.3.2004 Value at which (under IT Act without taken over by taking into consideration assessee 100% dep. As (R&D) Building 36,68,570 66,00,000 Leasehold improvements 7,098 ------- Plant and Machinery 1

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 35(1)(vi) and the value at which the assets were taken over by the assessee is as under: Particulars WDV as on 31.3.2004 Value at which (under IT Act without taken over by taking into consideration assessee 100% dep. As (R&D) Building 36,68,570 66,00,000 Leasehold improvements 7,098 ------- Plant and Machinery 1

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

164 (TCC)] (vi) Because of ambiguity in Explanation 5 of Section 9(1)(i), the issue was referred to an Expert Committee, which was constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr Parthasarathy Shome, [hereafter referred to as “Shome Committee”], which led to the insertion of Explanations 6 and 7 via FA 2015. However, the Amendments did not expressly state that they

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -1 vs. AUGUSTUS CAPITAL PTE. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

164 (TCC)] (vi) Because of ambiguity in Explanation 5 of Section 9(1)(i), the issue was referred to an Expert Committee, which was constituted under the Chairmanship of Mr Parthasarathy Shome, [hereafter referred to as “Shome Committee”], which led to the insertion of Explanations 6 and 7 via FA 2015. However, the Amendments did not expressly state that they

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this