MDLR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

capital gain :- 1. CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. 160 ITR 920 (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Bharat General Reinsurance Ltd. Co. 81 ITR 303 (Del) 3. Vijay Gupta Vs. CIT 386 ITR 643 (Del) 4. DIT (E) Vs. Ahay G. Piramal Foundation 52 taxmann.com 226 (Del) 5. CIT Vidarbha and Marathwada Vs. Smt. Archana R. Dhanwatay

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of the said property on the basis of material available on record. 88. The Article 265 of the Constitution of India lays down that no tax shall be levied except by authority of law. Hence, only legitimate tax can be recovered and even a concession or acquiescence by an assessee does not give authority

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of the said property on the basis of material available on record. 88. The Article 265 of the Constitution of India lays down that no tax shall be levied except by authority of law. Hence, only legitimate tax can be recovered and even a concession or acquiescence by an assessee does not give authority

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain on sale of the said property on the basis of material available on record. 88. The Article 265 of the Constitution of India lays down that no tax shall be levied except by authority of law. Hence, only legitimate tax can be recovered and even a concession or acquiescence by an assessee does not give authority

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

gain has arisen on account of transfer of rights in respect of shares, the date of acquisition has to be 29.12.2014, as there is no other date, event or document correlating the acquisition. 13. Learned counsel submitted, as per section 2(42A) of the Act, a short term capital asset is an asset held by an assessee for not more

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

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

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

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 90(1) of IT Act which is reproduced below: "90(1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India,- (a) for the granting of relief in respect of- (i) income on which have been paid both income-tax under this Act and income-tax in that

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

capital gain tax on entire gross amount including the amount of ₹25.48 crore deposited in the Escrow account. The revised computation was filed in the course of assessment proceeding for determination of correct tax liability in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have declined to entertain such claim in conformity with law mere owing to technical

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 54F of the Act in order to claim exemption in respect of Capital Gains arising from the transfer of a Long-Term Capital Asset, other than a house property, “an assessee should not own on the date of transfer of the original asset more than one residential house (other than the new house). 6. Accordingly, as on the date

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

gains tax; (ii) the Assessee was not the owner of the land and was not at all liable to tax in respect of the ITA Nos.20, 21 & 24 of 2003 and WTA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2003 Page 17 of 39 enhanced compensation and (iii) since the enhanced compensation was not finally settled, the right to receive the amount

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains tax; (ii) the Assessee was not the owner of the land and was not at all liable to tax in respect of the 2015:DHC:10010-DB ITA Nos.20, 21 & 24 of 2003 and WTA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2003 Page 17 of 39 enhanced compensation and (iii) since the enhanced compensation was not finally settled, the right

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

gains tax; (ii) the Assessee was not the owner of the land and was not at all liable to tax in respect of the ITA Nos.20, 21 & 24 of 2003 and WTA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2003 Page 17 of 39 enhanced compensation and (iii) since the enhanced compensation was not finally settled, the right to receive the amount

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains tax; (ii) the Assessee was not the owner of the land and was not at all liable to tax in respect of the 2015:DHC:10010-DB ITA Nos.20, 21 & 24 of 2003 and WTA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 of 2003 Page 17 of 39 enhanced compensation and (iii) since the enhanced compensation was not finally settled, the right

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:

section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 3 Income tax Officer, Ward-2, Rewari” In response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed return of income on 27th 4. April, 2015 declaring an income of Rs.3,580/- under the head ‘Income from other sources’, and ‘long-term capital loss’ at Rs.4,32,239/-. The assessee filed certain objections

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

capital gain, the exemption u/s 54F is irrelevant to allow.” (Addition: Rs.4,14,06,000/-) 23. Regarding the above denial of deduction u/s 54F of the Act, the ld. AR in the written arguments submitted in para 26 to 29 as extracted below, as under: “26. Apropos to the sale/ transfer of subject shares to Mr. Gaurav Garg

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

239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors and past history of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant

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

239 (Mad.) 3) CTR vs. Gopal Purohit 228 ITR 582 (Mum) To state that where it had been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, the same cannot be treated as stock-in-trade in the subsequent years. In view of the above discussion, the detailed factors and past history of the appellant, it is seen that the appellant