MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that compensation of Rs.33,55,12,980 received by the appellant from Thymelicus Holding B.V [shareholder of Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd. ('CIPL')] is taxable as 'salary' under section 17 of the Act, as against long-term capital gains offered to tax by the appellant in the return

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

section 153A of the Act. The Ld. CIT (A) has also not made any reference to any incriminating material/document in the impugned order. Therefore, the additions made in the assessment framed u/s 153A cannot be upheld as there is no reference to any incriminating material whatsoever. We have no option but to hold the impugned additions as being

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

2 of Consolidated FDI Policy (effective from April 5, 2013), which was applicable during the period in question, price of shares of an unlisted Indian company, transferred by resident to a non-resident, shall not be less than fair value determined by a SEBI registered Category I Merchant Banker or Chartered Accountant as per the discounted free cash

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

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

gain profit or loss to himself. There is no profit sharing agreement between the company and the client Ms Futurz Next Services Ltd. in respect of shares currencies traded out of funds advanced by the company. There is also no agreement executed by the company in respect of the advance and loan granted to Ms Futurz Next Services

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUBRATA ROY

gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression 'accumulated profits' in sub- clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those sub- clauses

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)

2. Ld. AO mentioned in para 5.9.1 at page 14 of the assessment order that assessee failed to submit any maps or plans to substantiate the depleted condition of the original purchased property. In this regard it is submitted that Form A (PB 40) of deed showing that year of construction is 0.7 which means that the purchased property

RAMOTAR SINGH HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 2, REWARI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

2 of the paper book to furnish certain documents such as copy of PAN of HUF, copy of return of income, if any, of HUF and the calculation of such long-term capital gain on sale of land in question along with supporting documents. Referring to page 3 of the paper book, he submitted that the assessee, vide letter dated

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

2. purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset; or 3. Construct any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of1 transfer of the original asset; and 15.2 On perusal of the above

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) on 30/12/2016 for three Assessment Years in case of two assessee and two assessment years in case of Third assessee. These assesses have also raised identical grounds in all these eight appeals. 2. We first discuses the facts and proceedings in case of Mr. Brij Bhushan Singal

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) on 30/12/2016 for three Assessment Years in case of two assessee and two assessment years in case of Third assessee. These assesses have also raised identical grounds in all these eight appeals. 2. We first discuses the facts and proceedings in case of Mr. Brij Bhushan Singal

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WELCOME SEEDS LTD.

290 190 -190 100 300 200 -200 12. The scheme of section 271(1)(c) therefore is this. If a person conceals income in the sense we understand it, he becomes liable to pay penalty. The concealment triggers the liability to penalty. Once the liability arises, the only other thing to do is to quantiff the amount of penalty

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

capital gains (d) any income by way of voluntary contribution received by a political party. 8. However, in order to avail of such exemption a political party has to fulfil the conditions detailed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 13A. A political party has to: (a) keep and maintain such books of accounts and other

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

capital gains (d) any income by way of voluntary contribution received by a political party. 8. However, in order to avail of such exemption a political party has to fulfil the conditions detailed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 13A. A political party has to: (a) keep and maintain such books of accounts and other