EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

gains from mutual fund units are not covered by Article 13(3A) which pertains to shares.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "10(38)", "112A", "2(42A)", "234B", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether capital

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

234B and 234D of the Act.” 3. Ground Nos.1 &2 are general in nature, hence do not require adjudication. 4. With regard to Ground Nos.3 & 3.1 which are with regard to not allowing withdrawal of add back made under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), ld. AR of the assessee submitted that these grounds

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

234B and 234D of the Act.” 3. Ground Nos.1 &2 are general in nature, hence do not require adjudication. 4. With regard to Ground Nos.3 & 3.1 which are with regard to not allowing withdrawal of add back made under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), ld. AR of the assessee submitted that these grounds

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

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

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

3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, time-barred, and liable to be quashed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings are illegal

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

3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, time-barred, and liable to be quashed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings are illegal

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

3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, time-barred, and liable to be quashed. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reassessment proceedings are illegal

BHS INDIA HOLDINGS, INC.,NEW JERSEY, USA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1)(2), DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the stay application which is tagged along is dismissed being infructous

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gains by virtue of the CBDT Circular dated 02 May 2016 and based on the factual documents furnished by the Appellant during the course of assessment proceedings and the proceedings before the Hon'ble DRP, which was not held by the learned AD as ingenuine or spurious 9. The learned AO. In passing the final order under section

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

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

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

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

sections 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act. 7. That on facts and in law the order of assessment u/s 143(3) passed by the Assessing Officer {hereinafter referred to as the “AO”} is bad in law and void ab-initio. 7. That on facts and in law the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax {hereinafter referred

INDIA PROPERTY (MAURITIUS) COMPANY II,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

234B of the Act). 3. Further, it will be convenient to understand the case of the Revenue as made by the AO and approved by the learned DRP, by reproducing the findings recorded by the DRP while deciding objection no. 1: “Objection No. 1 The assessee M/S India Property Mauritius Company II, has disclosed long 3 term Capital Gains

SAC FINANCE COMANY LTD,HONG KONG vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gains income in accordance with the provisions of section 48 of the Act and c) allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in rejecting the financials of Wormhole for the period ended March 31, 2018, suo-moto submitted

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

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