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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

M/S. GURU KRIPA AGRO FOODS,HARYANA vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

194 wherein it was held that the transaction, in order to attract the charge of tax as capital gains, must be such that consideration is received by the assessee or accrues to the assessee as a result of the extinguishment of the rights in the capital asset. In the present case, the assessee firm extinguished its rights from capital assets

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

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

Section 6(3) of the IT Act India read with Article 4(3) of the Treaty 26 (II) Judicial Dicta on tests for “control and management of affairs 223-239 situated wholly in India” 27 (III) Case of Dual Residence under the Treaty-Applicability of 235-239 Article 4(3) of Indo Mauritius DTAA Part-B-VI - Rebuttal of objections

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MOHINDER PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 54F of the I.T. Act. The assessee challenged the assessment order before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the written submissions of the assessee in the appellate order which is as under: (i) “One of the earliestenunciation on the subject finds place in the case of Californian Copper Syndicate Vs Harris

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ARJUN PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 54F of the I.T. Act. The assessee challenged the assessment order before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the written submissions of the assessee in the appellate order which is as under: (i) “One of the earliestenunciation on the subject finds place in the case of Californian Copper Syndicate Vs Harris

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

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

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

Capital Company Ltd. (‘ KMCC’) to carry out an equity valuation of SBP as of February 28, 2014 (“Valuation Date”) and provide the price per share of SBP, in relation to the proposed acquisition of shares of SBP that CGP does not already own from the Sellers. SBP, through a series of companies in the HoldCo Chain, is an indirect shareholder

M/S. ASHWANI KUMAR & SONS (HUF),MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwani Kumar & Sons (Huf) Ito, C/0. Vinod Kumar Goel, Vs. Ward-1(1), 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut Meerut Pan:Aahha7564A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain was not chargeable in view of provisions of section 2(47) of the Income tax act, 1961. For this he relied on the decision of Honourable Punjab and Haryana high court in case of C S Atwal V CIT 59 taxmann.com 359. His contention was that that the assessee is an HUF and therefore according to the provisions

M/S. CHANDRA PRAKASH GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, HAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sh. Chandra Prakash Goel, C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Hapur Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan : Aatpg4288R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/02/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad For Assessment Year 2010-11, Raising Following Grounds:

section 45(2) of the Act. The assessee got valuation report from approved valuer for cost of acquisition as on 01/04/1981 and fair market value of the land on the date of conversion of stock in trade for its business of real estate in the financial year 2009-10 (corresponding to the assessment year concerned). The assessee computed the long

ACIT, DELHI vs. M/S. THE INDIAN NEWS PAPER SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

194-I of the Act. The DR further submitted that the assessee has acquired land rights from Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority which provided land to the assessee on lease basis but on payment of lease premium. The Departmental Representative also contended that the assessee company was not holding full rights of land as the agreement entered into between Mumbai

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains derived from business of developing SEZ. Thus, the deduction is only available once the SEZ is developed and it cannot be allowed before the stage of development of SEZ. b. Sale of buildings to the co-developer is neither an activity of development of SEZ nor one of the authorized operations for SEZ notified by the competent authority

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Prashant Maharishi & Sh. K. N. Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dlf Limited Jcit Dlf Centre, (9Th Floor) Vs Range-10 Sansad Marg, 404, C. R. Building New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan No.Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Vs. Dlf Ltd. Circle –7 (1) Sansad Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains derived from business of developing SEZ. Thus, the deduction is only available once the SEZ is developed and it cannot be allowed before the stage of development of SEZ. b. Sale of buildings to the co-developer is neither an activity of development of SEZ nor one of the authorized operations for SEZ notified by the competent authority

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

capital gain on sale of asset. Therefore, the action of the Pr. CIT in treating the Assessment Order as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for taking a plausible view is arbitrary and merely on the basis of presumption and surmises. For the above proposition, the ld. Counsel for the referred to the following decisions:- i. PCIT

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

capital gain for the charitable purposes with reference to investment of net consideration received on transfer of assets. Since the assessee-society did not incur expenditure on transfer of land, therefore, entire consideration of Rs.9.11 crores was treated as net consideration. The Ld. 15 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon. CIT(A) issued show cause