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

4 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 assessee is very high with large volume of shares. He further noted that under the category of Long Term Capital Gain, assessee has sold shares of ‘Punjab Tractors Ltd.’ wherein assessee has earned profit of Rs.10.11 crores. The said transaction was carried out over the counter without paying STT. He also noted that assessee

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

4 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 assessee is very high with large volume of shares. He further noted that under the category of Long Term Capital Gain, assessee has sold shares of ‘Punjab Tractors Ltd.’ wherein assessee has earned profit of Rs.10.11 crores. The said transaction was carried out over the counter without paying STT. He also noted that assessee

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)

4 acknowledged by the Cinepolis group vide e-mail dated 08.10.2007 (page 163 of the paperbook). 6.1 Considering the aforesaid, CIPL was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 06.11.2007 and as agreed the appellant and Mr. Deepak Marda were appointed as Joint Managing Directors of CIPL. Also, Mr. Deepak Marda was allotted 10,000 equity shares and the remaining

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

4,709,894.00 6,652,606.00 Net Capital gain on Siliguri Land 6,574,220.00 b) Statement of capital sain on sale of land at Darjeelins, West Bensal Short Term Capital Gain Sale consideration(as per Registry Value) 16,055,000.00 Less:-Purchase Value 13.966.485.00 Net capital gain on Darjeeling land 2,088,515.00 G.T. 8,662,735.00” The Assessing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MONI KUMAR SUBBA, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

4,709,894.00 6,652,606.00 Net Capital gain on Siliguri Land 6,574,220.00 b) Statement of capital sain on sale of land at Darjeelins, West Bensal Short Term Capital Gain Sale consideration(as per Registry Value) 16,055,000.00 Less:-Purchase Value 13.966.485.00 Net capital gain on Darjeeling land 2,088,515.00 G.T. 8,662,735.00” The Assessing

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

4 ITA No. 3785/Del./2017 held the net capital gain shown by assessee of ₹ 1,51,75,238/-as business income. 3.3 Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed written submissions. The Ld. CIT(A) also following the finding of the Tribunal in ITA No.1118, 942 and 943/del/2010 dated 31/01/2012 upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer. The relevant

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

4. We find that this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee after discussing the issue threadbare. The relevant observation and finding reads as under: - “14. We have heard the rival submission and also perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as matter referred to before us. The core issue before

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

CIT vs. M/S 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

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2016, the Assessing Officer made certain additions/disallowances. The assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) but did not find any favour. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved with the findings of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. Before us, learned Representative

M/S. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

sections 2(42A) & 2(42B) with respect to short term capital gains and Instruction No. 1827 dated 31.08.1989, held that the main business of the assessee was trading of shares and therefore, the short term capital gain of Rs.71,23,102/- and long term capital gain of Rs.22,76,029/- totaling to Rs.93,99,131/- earned on entire sale

PREM NATH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

4 of the memo of appeal your appellant submits that lower authorities have erred in computing net taxable capital gains at Rs.11,36,211/- in spite of the fact that appellant had invested net amount of capital gains of Rs.2,93,211/- in specified Bonds as specified in section 54EC.” 6. Without prejudice the merits of the case

SUNIL MIGLANI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblesunil Miglani Vs Dcit Kj-2, Kavi Nagar Central Circle New Delhi Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 consciously intended to apply the fiction under Section 50C only to the expression used in section 48 and not in any other place. Section 50C has no effect for calculating exemption u/s 54F. The long term capital gain exemption is admissible u/s 54F(1)(b) of the Act as per working provided by the assessee wherein total taxable gain

M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain as Rs. 3,25,11,441 Discussed above Less Exemption u/s 10(38) Total Income Rs. 3.25.11.441 _____NIL R/o. Rs.1,64,13,172 Rs. 1,64,13,200 .” 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the ld AO preferred appeal before the ld CIT (A). Ld CIT(A) vide order dated 28.02.2013 held that assessee

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the appellant has purchased 2.58.520 shares of M/s NR Sponge Pvt. Ltd. @ Rs. 100/- per share. Out of the aforesaid shares, appellant sold 1.58.520 shares to M/s Magnum Steels Ltd. @Rs. 10 per share and thereby incurred a short term capital loss of Rs. 1.42.66.800/-. It is submitted that

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

4. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that the appellant has purchased 2.58.520 shares of M/s NR Sponge Pvt. Ltd. @ Rs. 100/- per share. Out of the aforesaid shares, appellant sold 1.58.520 shares to M/s Magnum Steels Ltd. @Rs. 10 per share and thereby incurred a short term capital loss of Rs. 1.42.66.800/-. It is submitted that