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

47 does not enlist any such exception that transfer of long term equity shares/funds are not treated as transfer for the purpose of section 45 and section 48 provides for computation of capital gain, which is arrived at after deducting cost of acquisition i.e. cost of any improvement and expenditure incurred in connection with transfer of capital asset, even

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year. When the word „transfer‟ itself has been defined under Section 2(47) (vi

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year. When the word „transfer‟ itself has been defined under Section 2(47) (vi

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

vi) and (vib) of the section 47 provides that transfer of a capital asset pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation and/ or demerger satisfying the definition in sections 2(1B) and 2(19AA) of the Act respectively, is exempt from capital gains

R.C. NIRULA & SONS HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshr.C. Nirula & Sons Huf, Vs. Asst. Commissioner A-2, Anand Niketan, Of Income Tax, New Delhi Circle-52(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaahr6050F Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Praveen Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manish Kumar Davas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/06/2024

gain for AY 2009-10 as transfer becomes complete in AY 2009– 10. 18. We find that the ld CIT(A) had applied the provisions of section 2(47)(vi), which reads as under:- “Section 2(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

capital gain in view of the provisions contained under section 49(2AA) read with section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. According to the Assessing Officer, the salary compensation received by the assessee amounting to USD 40,009,677 from SIMI US was offered to tax in the tax return in US, whereas, no tax has been offered in India

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

vi)] [or clause (via)] [or clause (viaa)] [or caluse (vica)] or [clause (vicb)] or clause (xiiib) of section 47]; [ (iv) Such assessee being a Hindu undivided family, by the mode referred to in sub-section (2) of section 64 at any time after the 31st day of December, 1969,] the cost of the acquisition of the assets shall be deemed

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

vi) The Finance Ministry issued a clarification press release dated 01-03-2013” (Pg 284 of PB -1). 5.2 Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on following case laws, wherein, the aforesaid Protocol, amendments and Circulars have been discussed and followed and it has been held that TRC issued by foreign country cannot be discarded by Revenue Authorities and also, there

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

vi) have been inserted in section 2(47) to prevent avoidance of the capital gain liability by recourse to transfer

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

capital gains on the shares which were acquired in 2008 and sold in 2011, which is much before 1 April 2017, is unsustainable and bad in law. V. The Assessee is not a resident of India as its control & management is not situated wholly in India: a. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined every year

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

vi) of the I. T. Act, 1961 which clearly says that an arrangement which allows enjoyment of immovable property shall also be called as transfer. 3 | P a g e . 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in not appreciating that agreement between M/s Devidayal Aluminum Industries Pvt Ltd and M/s Parsavnath Developers

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

vi) of the I. T. Act, 1961 which clearly says that an arrangement which allows enjoyment of immovable property shall also be called as transfer. 3 | P a g e . 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in not appreciating that agreement between M/s Devidayal Aluminum Industries Pvt Ltd and M/s Parsavnath Developers

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of assessee is allowed

47,806\nHDFC Flexi Cap Fund\nRegular Plan Growth\nOption\n05 February 2015 to 22\nFebruary 2017\n302,79,05,203\nTotal Capital Gains on mutual fund units\nacquired prior to 1 April 2017\n310,80,53,009\n\n• During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessee duly\nsubmitted mutual fund Statements showing details of purchase and sale

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

vi) 17.10.2018 Possession of the unit was taken by new buyer 73 from M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd 2.2 It is submitted that appellant claimed Long Term capital loss of Rs. 81,42,780 in respect of sale of office space in Project Digital Greens of M/s Emaar MGF Land Ltd. at Sector 61, Gurgaon, Haryana, details of Calculation

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 2(47) of the Act. The AO disallowed the short term capital loss of Rs. 76,12,50,000 claimed by the appellant. In addition to the appellant's submissions, the AR has also submitted the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, who has allowed the short term capital loss claimed by Alona Azalea Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, (AIPL

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

47. The issue to be decided before us-what is the meaning of the words "enhanced compensation/consideration" in Section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act? Will it cover "interest"? These questions also bring in the concept of the year of taxability. 48. It is to answer the above questions that we have analysed the provisions of Sections

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD

47)(ii) of the Act. The AO rejected the contention of the Assessee that the said capital receipt was not taxable. He held: 2015:DHC:10384-DB ITA 167/2003 Page 9 of 21 "The amendment to Finance Act, 1997 also very clearly states that if the extinguishment of the capital right to manufacture is for consideration it will fall under

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

vi. Out the sale proceeds assessee had given unsecured loans to some persons. 8. With respect to two computations, it is assessee's submission that the new revised computation is the correct computation and in any case the capital gain arising after exemption under section 54 is the NIL in both the cases. Further neither

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting