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

201,000,000\n(being c.US$46.02 per share) of which US$ 3,020,521,511 is the\nprice payable for the 65,634,887 put option shares owned or\nformerly owned by ECL and US$ 1,180,478,489 is the price\npayable for the 25,651,389 put option shares owned by ECom;\n(B) notwithstanding any provision

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

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

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

capital, transportation, level of the market, i.e. retail or wholesale and so forth. The Rules and the analytical steps. 71. Sub-Sections (1) and (2) to Section 92C are applicable to the assessed, as well as the Assessing Officer invoking power under Sub-Section (3) to Section 92C of the Act. As noted above, sub-section (2) to Section

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

1(a) of\ndisallowance of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act on long term\ncapital gain of Rs.1,17,34,753/- is hereby rejected.\"\n\n4. Hemil Subhashbhal Shah Vs DCIT (ITAT) ITA No 1121/Ahd/2018 &\nΙΤΑ No 961/Ahd/2019\n\nIn Para 8 of Its order Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad has discussed as under:-\n\n\"We have gone

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

1.—For the purposes of sub-clauses (v) and (vi), "immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (d) of 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

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)

1-4: -The Ld. AO has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs.21,66,00,000/- u/s 45 r.w.s. 54F( 4) by denying exemption claimed u/s 54F in respect of long-term capital gains arising on the sale of shares by alleging that the assessee failed to construct a residential house within the prescribed period. 12 The facts

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub section (1) would not be available where 8 an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

ACIT CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHU GARG, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 54F) Short Term Capital Gains 1. Patudi Nabab – 1 – Rs.5,58,475/- 2. Patudi Nabab – 2 – Rs.4,24,000/- Total – Rs.9,82,000/- 6. The Assessing Officer examined each transaction and re- determined the capital gains. 1. Deed No. 72 – Rs.5,93,000/- 7. The details submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer pertaining to the transactions

VIPIN JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN : AADHV8042G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

201(1A) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and filed an affidavit stating that the entire interest had been paid on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the LA Act and no amount of interest was paid under section 34 of the LA Act and that

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

201(1A) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and filed an affidavit stating that the entire interest had been paid on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the LA Act and no amount of interest was paid under section 34 of the LA Act and that

LAND ACQUISTION OFFICE,GURGAON vs. DCIT (TDS), GURGAON

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

201(1A) of the Act for assessment year 2012-13. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated its stand and filed an affidavit stating that the entire interest had been paid on enhanced compensation under section 28 of the LA Act and no amount of interest was paid under section 34 of the LA Act and that