ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

capital gains on the shares which were\nacquired in 2008 and sold in 2011, which is much before 1 April 2017, is\nunsustainable and bad in law.\nV. The Assessee is not a resident of India as its control &\nmanagement is not situated wholly in India:\na. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined\nevery year

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

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

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gains from alienation of movable or immovable property as well as on capital appreciation. 2. The existing taxes to which the Agreement shall apply are; (a) In United Arab Emirates: (i) Income tax; (ii) Corporation tax; (iii) Wealth-tax (hereinafter referred to as “U.A.E. tax”) 3. This Agreement shall also apply to any identical or substantially similar taxes on income

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

section 54F of the Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in impugned order dated 09.08.2024. Hence the present appeal. The case of the assessee is that she sold shares on 20.12.2012 and deposited capital gain in bank account under capital gain scheme and further she started construction of a residential property. For this purpose, she purchased a residential

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

capital gains not under the head income from\nBusiness.\n36. The next issue is whether the CBDT circular be applied prospectively or\nretrospectively, we observed that this issue was already addressed by the Hon’ble\nCalcutta High Court in the case of Century Plyboards I Ltd (supra), wherein it was\nheld that CBDT Circular 6/2016 dated 29/2/2016 would be applicable

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

183,894/- 8. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities have erred in disallowing the transit and mess expenses merely on the basis of its accounting head as ‘Guest House Expenses’ on the basis of Tax Audit Report, in total disregard to the submissions of the assessee. General: 9. The lower authorities have acted arbitrarily

SAHIWAL INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

capital gain, in respect of building in view of the provision of Section 50 of the Act as directed by the ITAT. In other words, the very foundation based on which the proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated at the time of original assessment in his order dated 6 27.11.2008, has been totally substituted

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, value of an assets which is to be estimated u/s 7 of the Wealth Tax Act; (f) That fair market value has not been defined under the Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, value of an assets which is to be estimated u/s 7 of the Wealth Tax Act; (f) That fair market value has not been defined under the Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, value of an assets which is to be estimated u/s 7 of the Wealth Tax Act; (f) That fair market value has not been defined under the Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

capital gain and the 64 ITA.Nos.263/Asr/2003, 267 to 269/Asr/2007 & C.O.Nos.43 to 45/Asr/2007 Shri M.K. Ajatshatru, Jammu & Others, value of an assets which is to be estimated u/s 7 of the Wealth Tax Act; (f) That fair market value has not been defined under the Wealth Tax Act, whereas the same has been define

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

capital management, financial risk management and funds deployment (investments). Investment is only one of the functions performed by them. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid investments did not involve any expenditure on account of administrative or other managerial expenses and that any portion of such expenses, if at all, Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT is to be attributed

M/S. HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

capital management, financial risk management and funds deployment (investments). Investment is only one of the functions performed by them. The Ld. AR submitted that the aforesaid investments did not involve any expenditure on account of administrative or other managerial expenses and that any portion of such expenses, if at all, Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT is to be attributed

MUKESH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-41(1), NEW DELHI

183 Limited (Claimed exempt u/s 10(38) ii) 2014-15 SBI Magna 10.5.2013 45,06,452 2.5.2013 45,00,000 6,452 (other Insta Cash (Short term capital than gain) script SBI Premier 4.7.2013 2,30,79,18 -- 2,30,00,00 791,88 under Liquid Fund 8 0 (Short term capital considerat gain) ion) V&K Software

PINKI BEDI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Assessee

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

183/-. However, the assessment record of Sh. Sunil Bedi showed the following:- Capital gains Long Term Capital Gain Sale of land Sale consideration 2,500,050.00 Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition (1558033.00) 942,017.00 14.1 The AO observed that indexed cost has been worked out by adopting value of Rs. 9,90,000/- as price and applying index

SUNIL BEDI,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GURGAON

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Assessee

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

183/-. However, the assessment record of Sh. Sunil Bedi showed the following:- Capital gains Long Term Capital Gain Sale of land Sale consideration 2,500,050.00 Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition (1558033.00) 942,017.00 14.1 The AO observed that indexed cost has been worked out by adopting value of Rs. 9,90,000/- as price and applying index

SUNIL BEDI,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, GURGAON

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Assessee

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

183/-. However, the assessment record of Sh. Sunil Bedi showed the following:- Capital gains Long Term Capital Gain Sale of land Sale consideration 2,500,050.00 Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition (1558033.00) 942,017.00 14.1 The AO observed that indexed cost has been worked out by adopting value of Rs. 9,90,000/- as price and applying index