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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

capital gain or business income’ is in dispute and if certain facts are being pointed out from the material already on record, then the same can always be examined to see, whether it was acquired for the purpose of investment or for the purpose of trading. Thus, objection raised by the ld. CIT-DR is rejected. 21. The next issue

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

capital gain or business income’ is in dispute and if certain facts are being pointed out from the material already on record, then the same can always be examined to see, whether it was acquired for the purpose of investment or for the purpose of trading. Thus, objection raised by the ld. CIT-DR is rejected. 21. The next issue

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

capital gain or business income’ is in dispute and if certain facts are being pointed out from the material already on record, then the same can always be examined to see, whether it was acquired for the purpose of investment or for the purpose of trading. Thus, objection raised by the ld. CIT-DR is rejected. 21. The next issue

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

section 9(1)(i) of the Act, capital gain arising through or from the transfer of a capital asset situated in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India in all cases irrespective of whether the capital asset is movable or immovable, tangible or intangible; the place of registration of the document of transfer etc. is in India

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)

section 2(24) of the Act. Capital receipt is by its very nature, not "income" per se and is, unless otherwise specifically provided, not liable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Being so, only such capital receipts, which are taxable under the head "capital 9 gains" or under any other specific provision, are taxable under the provisions

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 28(va) of the Act. 2.2 For the sake of convenience, the findings recorded by the Ld.AO in this regard are being extracted as below – 3. Long term capital gains from sale of shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd:- During the relevant previous year, the assessee has sold 24800 shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd (MIPL). These

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)

section 6(3) of the Act, what is required to be seen is de facto control, i.e., where the control and management is actually exercised. In the instant case, it is very clear that the control and management was exercised by the board of directors in Mauritius since all the 11 meeting during the previous year relevant

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

200 shares on 24.02.2015 for an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,18,34,753/- through M/s. Narayan Securities Ltd. resulting in long term capital gain of Rs. 1,17,14,346/- which the assessee claimed as exempt under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

capital gains\".\n\n4. The assessment order does not mention the date on which\nthe shares in question were purchased. We also note that the\nassessment order records that the assessee had converted and\ntransferred the shares in question under the head \"investment\" on 1st\nApril, 2004. This factual position was not disputed or questioned. The\nshares in question were

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MOHINDER PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

200 (Chd) Kind attention is invited to para 5 of the order where the Hon’ble Bench has referred to the guidelines for deciding the issue whether the profit is by way of capital gain or business profit. The conclusion is in para 7. This judgment lucidly explains some of the contours of controversy and basis for deciding the issue

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ARJUN PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

200 (Chd) Kind attention is invited to para 5 of the order where the Hon’ble Bench has referred to the guidelines for deciding the issue whether the profit is by way of capital gain or business profit. The conclusion is in para 7. This judgment lucidly explains some of the contours of controversy and basis for deciding the issue

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

section 6(3) of the Act, de\nfacto control is to be considered:\n49. The lower authorities, to come to the conclusion that the control and\nmanagement was not with the board of directors of the Assessee, have\nrelied on clauses of various loan agreements by stating that the change of\ncontrol clauses in various loan agreements bring out that

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

Section 2(42A), which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015. 2.That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in re-computing the amount of capital gain arising from sale of shares of M/s Scorpio Beverages Pvt. Ltd. ('SBPL') by substituting actual sales consideration of Rs. 9,97,92,44,200

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

Capital Gain for taking the benefit of provisions of Section 111A of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " G. Venkataswami Naidu and Co. Vs CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) " Indramani Bai (Smt.) Vs Addl. CIT 200