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)

gain returned by the Appellant. 6. That the CIT(A) erred in law in observing that for unlisted shares to qualify as a „long term capital asset‟, the period of holding was 36 months and not 12 months as per the first proviso to section 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of Rs. 6,25,000 shares of M/s. NDTV Ltd by the appellant in the year under consideration 2.1 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of provisions contained in section 45(2A) read with section 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of Rs. 6,25,000 shares of M/s. NDTV Ltd by the appellant in the year under consideration 2.1 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of provisions contained in section 45(2A) read with section 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of Rs. 6,25,000 shares of M/s. NDTV Ltd by the appellant in the year under consideration 2.1 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of provisions contained in section 45(2A) read with section 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of Rs. 6,25,000 shares of M/s. NDTV Ltd by the appellant in the year under consideration 2.1 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of provisions contained in section 45(2A) read with section 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of Rs. 6,25,000 shares of M/s. NDTV Ltd by the appellant in the year under consideration 2.1 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of provisions contained in section 45(2A) read with section 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of Rs. 6,25,000 shares of M/s. NDTV Ltd by the appellant in the year under consideration 2.1 That while upholding the addition the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of provisions contained in section 45(2A) read with section 2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

2(14) of the Income Tax Act, the long term capital gains has to be computed in relation to transfer of this unit. The assessee has given a computation of capital gain which has been reproduced by us in para 22 of this order. Since neither the Assessing Officer nor ld. CIT (A) have undertaken the exercise of computation

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

2(14) of the Income Tax Act, the long term capital gains has to be computed in relation to transfer of this unit. The assessee has given a computation of capital gain which has been reproduced by us in para 22 of this order. Since neither the Assessing Officer nor ld. CIT (A) have undertaken the exercise of computation

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

Capital Hill Main Road Ranchi Sir, Sub: application for lease of area of 500 acres by m/s. Arcellormitallindian limited mining lease of iron and, manganese ore in West Singhbhum, Meghaburum Karampada RF) Ref: letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of director, mining, Jharkhand In reference to the above letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of the Director Mining Jharkhand it is informed

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

6. Thereafter, he again referred to various decisions as discussed from pages 15 to 22 of his order including CBDT Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007 and concluded that assessee was dealing in sale and purchase of shares for earning profit and tax them under the head ‘business income’ in the following manner: Long Term Capital gain

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

6. Thereafter, he again referred to various decisions as discussed from pages 15 to 22 of his order including CBDT Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007 and concluded that assessee was dealing in sale and purchase of shares for earning profit and tax them under the head ‘business income’ in the following manner: Long Term Capital gain

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

6. Thereafter, he again referred to various decisions as discussed from pages 15 to 22 of his order including CBDT Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007 and concluded that assessee was dealing in sale and purchase of shares for earning profit and tax them under the head ‘business income’ in the following manner: Long Term Capital gain

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)

gains and was in effect a capital receipt. The relevant extracts of the judgement are reproduced hereunder: "7. We are, therefore, left with the question as to whether the right to claim damages in the instant case is a 'property of any kind and thus, a 'capital asset' under section 2(14)of the Act. The further question

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: Provided that in case the aforesaid arrangement involves a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, the amount of profits from such transaction shall be determined having regard

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

section (2) of the Act was not applicable. Accordingly, the gain was taxable as short term capital gain and the new assets purchased by the assessee would not form part of the block of assets relating to the paper division. In other words, he differentiated between the block of assets belonging to the paper division and the block of assets

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

section (2) of the Act was not applicable. Accordingly, the gain was taxable as short term capital gain and the new assets purchased by the assessee would not form part of the block of assets relating to the paper division. In other words, he differentiated between the block of assets belonging to the paper division and the block of assets

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

The appeals are disposed of

section (2) of the Act was not applicable. Accordingly, the gain was taxable as short term capital gain and the new assets purchased by the assessee would not form part of the block of assets relating to the paper division. In other words, he differentiated between the block of assets belonging to the paper division and the block of assets