PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

capital gain calculation and also as income from other sources. Inspite of Hon’ble DRP direction to record reason on the alleged treatment of impugned amount, no justification has been given in assessment order dated 26.06.2022 u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act. 5. That the learned AO / DRP has grossly erred in law and on facts

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

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 50 of the Act to consider the ‘sale of shares’ as ‘sale of asset’ for calculating short term capita gain, is invalid and not supported by any legal provisions. We therefore direct the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 50 of the Act to consider the ‘sale of shares’ as ‘sale of asset’ for calculating short term capita gain, is invalid and not supported by any legal provisions. We therefore direct the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

section 50 of the Act to consider the ‘sale of shares’ as ‘sale of asset’ for calculating short term capita gain, is invalid and not supported by any legal provisions. We therefore direct the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground

BIGSTAR HOTELS RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NEW DELHI

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

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "144B", "50CA", "11UA", "11UAA", "56(2)(viib)", "234A", "234B" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer correctly determined the Fair Market Value (FMV) of unquoted shares for capital gains

BRAHAM PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

capital gain, thereby it was stated that the taxable gain was Rs. 1,02,625/-, after claiming 3 Braham Prakash Vs. ITO exemption u/s 54F of Rs. 16,35,964/- and exemption u/s 54B of Rs. 12,69,146/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 54B on the basis that the investment was made in the name

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)

capital 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 an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

FR. SAUTER AG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(3)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13]

capital gains at Rs. 4,16,27,166 as per first proviso of section 48 and section 112 of the Act read with Rule 115A. 4 Fr. Sauter AG. Vs. ITO 5- Ground No. 5: Credit of taxes deducted at source and self-assessment tax 5.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the ease

RENU SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

234B and Section 234C of the A 9. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A and 271D That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A and 271D That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270A and 271D of the Act is incorrect, illegal and bad in law; of the Act is incorrect, illegal

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

Capital Gains”. 2.1 Without prejudice, that on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in denying benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. 2.2 Without prejudice, on facts and in law the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of AO in denying benefit of concessional rate

ANIL KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

SUMIT DANG,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

RAMESH CHAND,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five

RAJEEV KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals of the respective assessees are

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 20.05.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi for the common assessment year 2019-20. 2. Common issue is involved in all the five appeals on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of property which was a joint property of the five