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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

capital gains were neither intrinsically nor congenitally of income character (paragraph 14 of the decision). Section 2(24) of the Act which defines income under the Act inclusively, in its relevant part, reads as under: "2. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (24) 'income' includes-….. (vi

MR. J.S. GUJRAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

capital gain that the appellant-companies may obtain on the sale of shares. Whether such a prospective income/gain could be construed as benefit taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? In Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that state has no power to tax 26 ITAs

MR. RANJEET SINGH,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

capital gain that the appellant-companies may obtain on the sale of shares. Whether such a prospective income/gain could be construed as benefit taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? In Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that state has no power to tax 26 ITAs

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR PANT,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

capital gain that the appellant-companies may obtain on the sale of shares. Whether such a prospective income/gain could be construed as benefit taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? In Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that state has no power to tax 26 ITAs

MR. SANJIV NARAYAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

capital gain that the appellant-companies may obtain on the sale of shares. Whether such a prospective income/gain could be construed as benefit taxable under section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? In Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that state has no power to tax 26 ITAs

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(24)(vi) of the 55 | P a g e Act. It is by virtue of Sec. 10(33) of the Act that any income arising from the transfer of a capital asset, being a unit of the unit scheme, 1964 referred in Schedule I to the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal

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)

24 months by the Finance Act, 2016. However, the AO held that the proviso of sub-section 42A of section (2) clearly specifies that for the purpose of considering assets as 'short term capital asset', the period of holding is 12 months instead of 36 months, which is only in respect of following: ( Share or security listed in recognized stock

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of McDowell & Co Ltd vs CTO 22 taxmann 11 and held that the transaction shown as long-term capital gain are nothing but Sham transactions which have been manipulated to avoid the tax arising on the transfer of shares of NDTV limited. vii. That assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

vi) Section 50 of IT Act cannot be attributed to the facts of the present case because the title of this section is "a special provision for computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable asset". As pointed out above, the agreement to sell was not for transferring depreciable assets only but for transferring the entire unit

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

24 of 118 mining in the subject area was not permitted. Since the cut-off date of 11th January, 2017 has expired, now only auction is possible. 5.3 EC was given only if a party had FC. Since there was no FC in favour of the petitioner, the EC dated 21st October, 2011 had no significance. 5.4 No permission

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

24 05 2018 Date of pronouncement: 20 08 2018 O R D E R 2 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid Appeals have been filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12, passed by ld. CIT (Appeals)-XVII vide separate order dated 11.03.2011, 30.11.2012 and 26.05.2015 respectively, for the quantum

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

24 05 2018 Date of pronouncement: 20 08 2018 O R D E R 2 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid Appeals have been filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12, passed by ld. CIT (Appeals)-XVII vide separate order dated 11.03.2011, 30.11.2012 and 26.05.2015 respectively, for the quantum

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

24 05 2018 Date of pronouncement: 20 08 2018 O R D E R 2 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid Appeals have been filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12, passed by ld. CIT (Appeals)-XVII vide separate order dated 11.03.2011, 30.11.2012 and 26.05.2015 respectively, for the quantum

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

vi) Section 50 of IT Act cannot be attributed to the facts of the present case because the title of this section is "a special provision for computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable asset". As pointed out above, the agreement to sell was not for transferring depreciable assets only but for transferring the entire unit