DCIT, CIRCLE- 62(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAMESH KUMAR PABBI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit Vs. Ramesh Kumar Pabbi Circle – 62(1), A-41, Phase-Ii, New Delhi Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi-110017 Pan – Aanpp 5995 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sohail Malik, Sr.D.R. Revenue By Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

22)(e). The present appeal is therefore dismissed. 21.6 As regards the nomenclature in the balance sheet, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Arvind Kumar Jain in ITA NQ. 589/2011 dated 30.9.2011 held as under: “6 Learned counsel for the appellant hammered the fact that the amount was shown by the assessee himself

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

2, only if they were chargeable under section 12B. As noticed already, section 12B as modified by the Finance Act, 1949, did not charge any "capital gains" arising between April 1,1948, and April 1, 1957. Indeed section 12B was not operative in these years (1948— 57). During this period, "capital gains", whether on the positive or the negative side

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Capital Services ltd. IY 2013- 14 are as under:- " 12.6 The reply of assessee is carefully considered. (i) The provision of section 2(22ttet applies to closely held company the assessee company is a private company in which the public is not substantially interested. Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 plainly seeks to bring within

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)

E. Issue relating to gain arising from sale of unlisted shares to be taxed as long-term capital gain or short term capital gain 83. In the return of income, the assessee has declared income of Rs. 825,12,22,942/- under the head 'long term capital gains' in respect of following shares sold during the year under consideration:— Name

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly held demat account. The first lot of 48,35,850 shares

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly held demat account. The first lot of 48,35,850 shares

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly held demat account. The first lot of 48,35,850 shares

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly held demat account. The first lot of 48,35,850 shares

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly held demat account. The first lot of 48,35,850 shares

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly held demat account. The first lot of 48,35,850 shares

PYRAMID REALTORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. 3.1. The assessee challenged all the three additions before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the three additions. The assessee is in appeal challenging the above three additions on all the seven grounds of appeals

SAAMAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. 3.1. The assessee challenged all the three additions before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the three additions. The assessee is in appeal challenging the above three additions on all the seven grounds of appeals

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

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

e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. 3.1. The assessee challenged all the three additions before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the three additions. The assessee is in appeal challenging the above three additions on all the seven grounds of appeals

SAGA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 5 ITA.Nos.2053, 2054, 2055, 2056 & 2057/Del./2017 M/s. Saamag Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi & Others. 3.1. The assessee challenged all the three additions before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the three additions. The assessee is in appeal challenging the above three additions on all the seven grounds of appeals

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

capital base is more than Rs. 5 crores but it is not a widely held public limited company in which the public are substantially interested, as envisaged in the section 2(22)( e) of the IT Act 1961. Provisions of section 2(22)( e) of the Act is being reproduced for better understanding: - 4 ITA No.2706 & 2768/Del./2012 "(22) "Dividend

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

capital base is more than Rs. 5 crores but it is not a widely held public limited company in which the public are substantially interested, as envisaged in the section 2(22)( e) of the IT Act 1961. Provisions of section 2(22)( e) of the Act is being reproduced for better understanding: - 4 ITA No.2706 & 2768/Del./2012 "(22) "Dividend

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

E) starts from Section 45 and goes up to Section 55A of the Act. Section 45 defines capital gains and sub-section (1) thereof reads as under: “Section 45 (1) (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer 737 of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections

SH. HARISH KANWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 2(22)(e) of the Act have been attracted. Accordingly, the assessee was required to furnish his explanation. The assessee furnished its explanation vide letter dated 25.1.2013 and has relied upon various case laws. After considering the submissions and the case laws, the AO has completed the assessment of the assessee at an income