NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

22,064 crores being a long term capital loss arising out of a mistake by the accountant when such actual loss was to be restricted to INR 2,49,82,206 brought forward from AY 2011-12. 24. That CIT (A) grossly erred on facts and in law that the accountant while computing the capital gain/loss from the sale

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

22. On the merits of the addition he stated that the decision relied upon by the learned authorised representative of 105 ITR 531 is pertaining to the Estate Duty Provisions and does not apply to the provisions of Income Tax Act. He further referred to the circular and stated that the learned assessing officer has correctly computed the capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

22. On the merits of the addition he stated that the decision relied upon by the learned authorised representative of 105 ITR 531 is pertaining to the Estate Duty Provisions and does not apply to the provisions of Income Tax Act. He further referred to the circular and stated that the learned assessing officer has correctly computed the capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

22. On the merits of the addition he stated that the decision relied upon by the learned authorised representative of 105 ITR 531 is pertaining to the Estate Duty Provisions and does not apply to the provisions of Income Tax Act. He further referred to the circular and stated that the learned assessing officer has correctly computed the capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

22. On the merits of the addition he stated that the decision relied upon by the learned authorised representative of 105 ITR 531 is pertaining to the Estate Duty Provisions and does not apply to the provisions of Income Tax Act. He further referred to the circular and stated that the learned assessing officer has correctly computed the capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

22. On the merits of the addition he stated that the decision relied upon by the learned authorised representative of 105 ITR 531 is pertaining to the Estate Duty Provisions and does not apply to the provisions of Income Tax Act. He further referred to the circular and stated that the learned assessing officer has correctly computed the capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

22. On the merits of the addition he stated that the decision relied upon by the learned authorised representative of 105 ITR 531 is pertaining to the Estate Duty Provisions and does not apply to the provisions of Income Tax Act. He further referred to the circular and stated that the learned assessing officer has correctly computed the capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SINDHU REALTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : 2 ITA No.2706 & 2768/Del./2012 These cross appeals, at the instance of the revenue and assessee, are filed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi dated 14.03.2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. First we take up the revenue’s appeal being ITA No.2768/Del/2012. 3. The solitary ground

M/S. SINDHU REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri A.T. Varkey

D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : 2 ITA No.2706 & 2768/Del./2012 These cross appeals, at the instance of the revenue and assessee, are filed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-XI, New Delhi dated 14.03.2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. First we take up the revenue’s appeal being ITA No.2768/Del/2012. 3. The solitary ground

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUBRATA ROY

Section 2 (22) (e) of the Act reads as follows: “(22) " dividend " includes-- (a) any distribution by a company of accumulated profits, whether capitalised or not, if such distribution entails the release by the company to its shareholders of all or any part of the assets of the company; (b) any distribution to its shareholders by a company of debentures

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

d. 837 the purchaser was required to pay all debts due by and to perform outstanding contracts comprised in the entire undertaking. The word 'undertaking' is used in the Indian Electricity Act, the Air Corporation Act, 1953, the Imperial Bank of India Act, 1920 (sections 3, 4, 6 and 7), the State Bank of India Act, 1955 [Section

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

22 of 118 4.27 Expert Appraisal Committee appointed by the MoEFCC in its 20th Meeting dated 19th October, 2011 recommended grant of EC to the petitioner subject to the petitioner obtaining Forestry and Wildlife Clearances. Further, Removal of Difficulties Order dated 04th January, 2017 clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 10A(2)(c) of MMDR Amendment

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

22 of this order. Since neither the Assessing Officer nor ld. CIT (A) have undertaken the exercise of computation of long term capital gain as per provision of section 45 and 48 of Income Tax Act in our view, this exercise has to be undertaken afresh. 64. On the basis of our observations and findings recorded above, we reverse

DCIT, 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

D. Trivedi (HUF) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 which was precisely on this issue that if the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is of investor and held as investment then any action arising out of transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains. This judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has now been affirmed

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

D. Trivedi (HUF) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 which was precisely on this issue that if the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is of investor and held as investment then any action arising out of transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains. This judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has now been affirmed

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

D. Trivedi (HUF) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 which was precisely on this issue that if the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is of investor and held as investment then any action arising out of transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains. This judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has now been affirmed

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

22. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, that the lease agreement was an exercise in tax -avoidance and, therefore, both the AO and the CIT(A) rightly held that the real transaction was one of sale of the assets constituting transfer and attracting capital gains

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

22. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was submitted by Mr. Raghvendra Singh, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, that the lease agreement was an exercise in tax -avoidance and, therefore, both the AO and the CIT(A) rightly held that the real transaction was one of sale of the assets constituting transfer and attracting capital gains