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 taxation by the AO 6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of Para 11 (page 24-27) ECL the existing arrangement Para 11 (page 23-25) ECOM 6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom Para 12 (page 27-33) ECL Business from Onshore to offshore Para 12 (page 26-31) ECOM 6.3 Acquisition

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

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, 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

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

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

section 269UA. ITA No.-1807/Del/2022 Bhupinder Singh Julka Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains through shares of M/s CCL\nInternational Ltd. had also admitted that they were also Involved in trading\nof these Jamakharchi Companies through which manipulative transactions\nin securities to either artificially raise or lower the market rate of the shares\nare being done.\n\n10. Abhimanyu Soin Vs ACIT 2018-TIOL-733-ITAT-CHD\n\nwhere Hon'ble ITAT

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain and therefore the calculation made by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of section 48 of the Income Tax Act. Assessee had declared cost of improvement as under: a) Khasra No. 201

USHA SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal and stay application of the assessee are dismissed

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

Capital gain Rs.12,80,000/- ---- tax payable by the vendee as per section 195 IT Act. Vi. 1% deducted on account of TDS as Rs.1,20,000/- ---- per Govt. of India Notification Rs.1,20,00,000/- (the sale consideration has been paid by the vendees after tax deduction at source (TDS) @ 1% as per Govt. of India Notification, amounting

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)

section 54F of the Act. Further, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in impugned order dated 09.08.2024. Hence the present appeal. The case of the assessee is that she sold shares on 20.12.2012 and deposited capital gain in bank account under capital gain scheme and further she started construction of a residential property. For this purpose, she purchased a residential

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

gains under clause (38) of section 10 will be available for transfer made between 1st February, 2018 and 31st March, 2018, the long-term capital loss arising during this period will not be allowed to be set-off or carried forward.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR mainly argued referring to the provisions

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

gains under clause (38) of section 10 will be available for transfer made between 1st February, 2018 and 31st March, 2018, the long-term capital loss arising during this period will not be allowed to be set-off or carried forward.” 4. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. The ld. AR mainly argued referring to the provisions

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Markets (India) (P.) Ltd: 379 ITR 146 wherein, again, it has been reiterated that where assessee was under bona fide belief that tax was not deductible at source, disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act could not be sustained for non-deduction of tax at source. v. Further, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

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

capital gains not under the head income from\nBusiness.\n36. The next issue is whether the CBDT circular be applied prospectively or\nretrospectively, we observed that this issue was already addressed by the Hon’ble\nCalcutta High Court in the case of Century Plyboards I Ltd (supra), wherein it was\nheld that CBDT Circular 6/2016 dated 29/2/2016 would be applicable

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain in various companies. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The appeal with respect to the appellant are dealt with at page number 458- 477 of the appellate order vide para number 148 – 165 of the order. Therefore, assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT- A has preferred an appeal before us. 10. Before commencing

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain in various companies. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeals of the assessee. The appeal with respect to the appellant are dealt with at page number 458- 477 of the appellate order vide para number 148 – 165 of the order. Therefore, assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT- A has preferred an appeal before us. 10. Before commencing

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

section 68 is completely perverse and in it logical manner without applying the mind inasmuch as the cash credit was introduced by the assessee and on the contrary, the capital of the assessee has got depleted due to shorten capital loss. According to the assessee, it was a case of “cash debit” instead of “cash credit

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

gain. The Assessing Officer did not take into account the contentions of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was of the view that since the assessee paid the sum of Rs. 297.46 crores on account of deferred contract receipts, the same should be treated as pure business receipts. The Assessing Officer referred to CBDT Circular No. 711 dated 24.07.1995 whereby

CHANAN LAL DHINGRA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 50C of the Act. The total cost of acquisition was Rs. 45,74,000/-. The short-term capital gain was computed at Rs. 8,20,500/-. The share of the assessee is 50%. Therefore, Rs. 4,10,250/- was added to the total income. Before the ld. CIT (Appeals) the assessee submitted that the above property, namely, of Villa