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)

section 2 (42A) of the act, and submitted that in its plain meaning the equity shares of a unlisted company can only become long term assets if held for more than 36 months. c. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Asoka Chimanbhai 56 ITR 42 wherein in para number

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2,8,14,17,945.86 were shown. However, the dates of acquisition of those shares were neither disclosed nor specification whether shares are short-term or long-term capital asset was mentioned. Naturally, no basis of claiming them to be Long-term capital assets was shown. However, assessee has worked out the cost of acquisition of those share

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2,8,14,17,945.86 were shown. However, the dates of acquisition of those shares were neither disclosed nor specification whether shares are short-term or long-term capital asset was mentioned. Naturally, no basis of claiming them to be Long-term capital assets was shown. However, assessee has worked out the cost of acquisition of those share

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2,8,14,17,945.86 were shown. However, the dates of acquisition of those shares were neither disclosed nor specification whether shares are short-term or long-term capital asset was mentioned. Naturally, no basis of claiming them to be Long-term capital assets was shown. However, assessee has worked out the cost of acquisition of those share

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2,8,14,17,945.86 were shown. However, the dates of acquisition of those shares were neither disclosed nor specification whether shares are short-term or long-term capital asset was mentioned. Naturally, no basis of claiming them to be Long-term capital assets was shown. However, assessee has worked out the cost of acquisition of those share

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2,8,14,17,945.86 were shown. However, the dates of acquisition of those shares were neither disclosed nor specification whether shares are short-term or long-term capital asset was mentioned. Naturally, no basis of claiming them to be Long-term capital assets was shown. However, assessee has worked out the cost of acquisition of those share

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2,8,14,17,945.86 were shown. However, the dates of acquisition of those shares were neither disclosed nor specification whether shares are short-term or long-term capital asset was mentioned. Naturally, no basis of claiming them to be Long-term capital assets was shown. However, assessee has worked out the cost of acquisition of those share

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

31(2) of the Constitution. ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 16 of 22 19. It is clear from the above that when an undertaking is sold, it is to be understood in contra-distinction, a whole of undertaking. From this itself, it would clearly follow that Section 50 dealing with the depreciable asset would not be applicable

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

31(2) of the Constitution. 2010:DHC:6300-DB 19. It is clear from the above that when an undertaking is sold, it is to be understood in contra-distinction, a whole of undertaking. From this itself, it would clearly follow that Section 50 dealing with the depreciable asset would not be applicable when the entire Sonepat Unit

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

Gains or Business Income — Instructions in order to reduce litigation - reg.- Sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject

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

Gains or Business Income — Instructions in order to reduce litigation - reg.- Sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject

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

Gains or Business Income — Instructions in order to reduce litigation - reg.- Sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject

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

31 of 118 have been made: 7.1 Union of India is conflating different issues and using its failure to grant one approval i.e. the FC approval to justify inability for grant of the other i.e. the mining lease. 7.2 There is no explanation for the delay in grant of clearances from 2009 to 2014. It is an admitted position that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, we proceed to dictate our decision. 3. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 2 of 23 1961 (Act, for short) have

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, we proceed to dictate our decision. 3. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, we proceed to dictate our decision. 3. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 2

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, we proceed to dictate our decision. 3. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 2

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

31. According to Mr. Singh, the wording of Section 2 (47) (vi) of the Act was wide enough to include the transaction in question and, therefore, it amounted to 'transfer' of a capital asset. According to him, Section 269UA(d)(ii) read with Section 269UA(f)(ii) expanded the scope of the definition rather than narrowing it. He also referred