EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

capital gains\nof Rs.310,80,53,009/- pertained to sale of units of mutual funds acquired prior\nto 01/04/2017 and hence, in respect of such gains, Article 13(3A) cannot be\napplicable. The relevant extract of the submissions of the assessee which were\nagain reasserted by ld. Sr. Counsel is reproduced as under:-\n\n• \"It is imperative to note

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

DCIT, CIRCLE- 4(1), NEW DELHI vs. KANWAL MOHAN SINGH SEHGAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16

section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) and declared taxable capital gain of Rs. 24,89,939/-. While computing capital gain of Rs. 1,94,89,939/- the assesee has claimed deduction of interest cost of Rs. 1,00,91,252/- as indexed cost of acquisition. On query, the assessee submitted that interest incurred for acquisition

HAREON SOLAR SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

178(SC).\n\n8.3. In rebuttal, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the place of\neffective management is based in Singapore as Board of Directors meeting has\ntaken place in Singapore and it was submitted that the Directors were\nphysically present in Singapore where the Board of Directors meeting had taken\nplace. It was submitted that decisions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. M.M. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

178,42,77,063 share in M/s Trishul Industries by appellant company and M/s MDLR Estates Ltd. ii) Full value of consideration on alleged transfer of 89,21,38,532 42.5% shares in partnership firm Trishul Industries by the appellant company iii) Less: Cost of acquisition 9,50,00,000 iv) Short Term Capital Gain

DCIT CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. MDLR ESTATES PVT.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

178,42,77,063 share in M/s Trishul Industries by appellant company and M/s MDLR Estates Ltd. ii) Full value of consideration on alleged transfer of 89,21,38,532 42.5% shares in partnership firm Trishul Industries by the appellant company iii) Less: Cost of acquisition 9,50,00,000 iv) Short Term Capital Gain

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

178 shares have been sold and cost of acquisition has been computed proportionately. Further for the computation of period, Ld AR draws attention towards definition of short term capital asset given in section 2(42A), in which in Explanation-1(g), it is stated that in case of a capital asset, being a share in an Indian company, which becomes

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

178 shares have been sold and cost of acquisition has been computed proportionately. Further for the computation of period, Ld AR draws attention towards definition of short term capital asset given in section 2(42A), in which in Explanation-1(g), it is stated that in case of a capital asset, being a share in an Indian company, which becomes

SRF LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Gain on sale of Mutual Fund units, he fairly submitted that the issue may be remitted to AO for his decision. 58. With respect to the treatment of Technology up-gradation fund (TUF) subsidy it is submitted Assessee had obtained loan of Rs.4000.00 lakhs from State Bank of India and Rs.3500.00 lakhs from State Bank of Mysore under

DELITE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital gain, therefore, he invoked the\nprovisions of section 14A of the Act and disallowed the entire amount of loss\nexpenses claimed of Rs.1,29,85,292/-.\n3.\nAgainst the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who\nvide impugned order dated 19.01.2024 has confirmed the additions and dismissed\nthe appeal of the assessee.\n4.\nAggrieved

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

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