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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains on sale of mutual fund units as taxable in India and making an addition of INR 297,13,00,571 in the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in levying interest

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

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

3. 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that equity shares of a listed company which had been held by assessee for a period exceeding 12 months and the same were sold on recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, resulting into a long term capital gain and therefore the long term capital gain

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

3. 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that equity shares of a listed company which had been held by assessee for a period exceeding 12 months and the same were sold on recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, resulting into a long term capital gain and therefore the long term capital gain

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

3. 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that equity shares of a listed company which had been held by assessee for a period exceeding 12 months and the same were sold on recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, resulting into a long term capital gain and therefore the long term capital gain

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

3. 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that equity shares of a listed company which had been held by assessee for a period exceeding 12 months and the same were sold on recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, resulting into a long term capital gain and therefore the long term capital gain

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

3. 1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that equity shares of a listed company which had been held by assessee for a period exceeding 12 months and the same were sold on recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, resulting into a long term capital gain and therefore the long term capital gain

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

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

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. Accordingly Rs.74,487/- (3% of sale value i.e. Rs.24,82,890/- is being added under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition of Rs.25,57,377/-] 11. With these remarks, the total income

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

RAMOTAR SINGH HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 2, REWARI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

3. That without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also erred both in law and on facts in confirming the incorrect computation of long term capital gain by restricting the indexed cost of acquisition to Rs. 1,25,892/- as against claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 1,39,68,698/- and thus

M/S. ASHWANI KUMAR & SONS (HUF),MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwani Kumar & Sons (Huf) Ito, C/0. Vinod Kumar Goel, Vs. Ward-1(1), 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut Meerut Pan:Aahha7564A (Appellant) (Respondent)

234B and 234C is not according to law as income of the assessee is relates to capital gain.” 3. Ground No. 1 and 2 are against denial of deduction to the assessee under section

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains of business, the provisions of clause (iii) of this proviso shall not apply unless the trust or institution maintains separate books of account in respect of such business. Explanation For the purposes of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c), in determining whether any part of the income or any property of any trust or institution is during the previous

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

3) rws section 148 and section 144 C (1) of the Income Tax Act on 09/03/2015. 15. Assessee preferred its objection against the draft assessment order to the Dispute resolution panel under section 144C of the act on which the directions were issued under section 144C (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31st. December 2015. Certain facts were

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KRISHNA SHRIRAM, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

section 234B of the Act.” 2. In this appeal, the assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal on 17.11.2016 as under : “That on the facts and circumstances of the case profit earned on sale of 6,79,000 shares of Mawana Sugars Ltd. inadvertently returned as ‘shgort ITA No. 866 , 1417/Del/2013 3 term capital gains

SHRI KRISHNA SHRIRAM,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

section 234B of the Act.” 2. In this appeal, the assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal on 17.11.2016 as under : “That on the facts and circumstances of the case profit earned on sale of 6,79,000 shares of Mawana Sugars Ltd. inadvertently returned as ‘shgort ITA No. 866 , 1417/Del/2013 3 term capital gains

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