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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5. Facts for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Mrs. Radhika Roy shows that assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for Rs. 1,66,61,534/– on 31/7/2009 and it was processed on 22/2/2011 under section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5. Facts for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Mrs. Radhika Roy shows that assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for Rs. 1,66,61,534/– on 31/7/2009 and it was processed on 22/2/2011 under section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5. Facts for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Mrs. Radhika Roy shows that assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for Rs. 1,66,61,534/– on 31/7/2009 and it was processed on 22/2/2011 under section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5. Facts for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Mrs. Radhika Roy shows that assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for Rs. 1,66,61,534/– on 31/7/2009 and it was processed on 22/2/2011 under section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5. Facts for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Mrs. Radhika Roy shows that assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for Rs. 1,66,61,534/– on 31/7/2009 and it was processed on 22/2/2011 under section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

5. Facts for assessment year 2009 – 10 in case of Mrs. Radhika Roy shows that assessee is an individual who filed her return of income for Rs. 1,66,61,534/– on 31/7/2009 and it was processed on 22/2/2011 under section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

D. Trivedi (HUF) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 which was precisely on this issue that if the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is of investor and held as investment then any action arising out of transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains. This judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has now been affirmed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

D. Trivedi (HUF) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 which was precisely on this issue that if the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is of investor and held as investment then any action arising out of transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains. This judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has now been affirmed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

D. Trivedi (HUF) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 which was precisely on this issue that if the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is of investor and held as investment then any action arising out of transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains. This judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has now been affirmed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

gain arising to a non-resident from the transfer of ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 14 of 22 shares in, or debentures of, an Indian company referred to in the first proviso, the provisions of Clause (ii) shall have effect as if for the words "cost of acquisition" and "cost of any improvement", the words "indexed cost

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 17.05.2022 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) for the AY 2018-19 pursuant to the directions of the DRP order dated 25.04.2022 passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act. The assessee in its appeal raised the following grounds: - I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022

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)

17 (9,190) - 2 .2013 months Scorpio Beverages Pvt. 01.04.201 21.03 23 8251,259,702 Ltd. 2 .2014 months Capital Gain 825,12,22,94 Mrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs The Additional CIT , New Delhi 2 The AO, required the assessee to explain as to why the sale of shares of SBPL should not be taxed as short term capital

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

5,60,76,607/- Capital Gain: `36,89,23,393/-“ 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that whether it was a slump sale or not was of no consequence and therefore, various case laws cited by the assessee in support of this proposition were not applicable. The learned counsel referred to the judgment in the case of Commonwealth Trust

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)

5: Compensation taxable as long-term capital gains is a capital receipt not liable to tax in the hands of the appellant. The amount of Rs.33.55 crores received as compensation could partake the character of long term capital gains since the compensation so received could at 14 best, be attributed to the right/ entitlement of the appellant to the carry

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred