ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

section 14A are mandatory provisions.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee in the Revenue’s Appeal submitted at the outset that identical issue came up in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein the benefit of Long Term Gains arising

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

172 ITR 311(SC) and held that the transaction of lease would fall within the general meaning of transfer of a capital asset. Therefore, it would be futile to examine whether Section 269UA was applicable. The ITAT held that the Explanation to Section 2(47) could be invoked only

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

172 ITR 311(SC) and held that the transaction of lease would fall within the general meaning of transfer of a capital asset. Therefore, it would be futile to examine whether Section 269UA was applicable. The ITAT held that the Explanation to Section 2(47) could be invoked only

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

Section 50 (2) of the Act, the entire surplus amount received by the Assessee on the sale of the aforesaid office premises would be liable to „short term capital gains‟. Accordingly, capital gain was calculated by the Assessing Officer by deducting the written down value of the „block of assets‟ as on 01.04.1997 which appeared in the books

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ROHAN AGARWAL, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royacit Vs. Rohan Agarwal Room No. 201, Cgo-1 Kd-42, Kavi Nagar 2Nd Floor, Near Purani Ghaziabad Hapur Chungi, Up – 201001 Ghaziabad, Up- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiupa3170F Appellant .. Respondent

section 10(38) of the Act and M/s CCL International Limited was one of the identified penny stock Company by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department which was used for such purpose. In such facts and circumstances, the amount as claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee on sale of shares

SAC FINANCE COMANY LTD,HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain income in accordance with section 48 of the Act [Ground 4 of our appeal] DRP directions-refer para 3.5 on page 178 of paper book 1. As per section 144C(10) of the Act the DRP directions are binding in nature and any order passed not in conformity with the directions is bad in law and needs

RADIALS INTERNATIONAL vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Court Is: “Whether, The Shares Invested Through A Portfolio Management 2014:Dhc:2173-Db

172/- was to be added as business income of the assesse (profits from trade less the PMS charges, treated as expenses wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business), second, that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were to be initiated and third, that the claim for rebate under Section 88E, as an alternative, was to fail since

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

gain from sale of shares of Shital Leasing and Finance Ltd, if according to the AO, is a sham transaction, then, addition should have been made in the respective hands of the share applicants and not the assessee company. The appellant is only required to prove the identity, genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the lender and by virtue

SMT. KRISHNA YADAV,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2005-06

section 3 AY: 2005-06 50C of the Act and proceeded to compute short term capital gain at Rs.15,45,172

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

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

capital gains on the land sold taking the cost of acquisition at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have erroneously made/upheld the addition on account of LTCG. Accordingly, he prayed that the said ground of appeal be allowed and the addition made on account of LTCG be deleted

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDLCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

capital gains on the land sold taking the cost of acquisition at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have erroneously made/upheld the addition on account of LTCG. Accordingly, he prayed that the said ground of appeal be allowed and the addition made on account of LTCG be deleted

HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

capital gains on the land sold taking the cost of acquisition at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have erroneously made/upheld the addition on account of LTCG. Accordingly, he prayed that the said ground of appeal be allowed and the addition made on account of LTCG be deleted

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

capital gains on the land sold taking the cost of acquisition at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have erroneously made/upheld the addition on account of LTCG. Accordingly, he prayed that the said ground of appeal be allowed and the addition made on account of LTCG be deleted

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4 , NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA- COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

capital gains on the land sold taking the cost of acquisition at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have erroneously made/upheld the addition on account of LTCG. Accordingly, he prayed that the said ground of appeal be allowed and the addition made on account of LTCG be deleted

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee’s for AYs 2014-15 to 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

capital gains on the land sold taking the cost of acquisition at Rs.20,69,46,071/- and that the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have erroneously made/upheld the addition on account of LTCG. Accordingly, he prayed that the said ground of appeal be allowed and the addition made on account of LTCG be deleted

ACIT,CIRCLE-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. AKASH PODDAR, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 10; (iii) any amount due to or received, whether in lump sum or otherwise, by any assessee from any person— (A) before his joining any employment with that person; or (B) after cessation of his employment with that person. 6 Akash Poddar 10. From the entire events, since the assessee was on job for a period of 2 completed

DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

capital receipt and hence was required to be set off against pre-operative expenses.” 17. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. We have gone in details the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC). It says

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

capital receipt and hence was required to be set off against pre-operative expenses.” 17. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 18. We have gone in details the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC). It says