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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain as a\nreal transaction. The order of Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute le well-\nreasoned and we do not find any Infirmity in the same. Accordingly, we\nuphold the same. Grounds raised by assessee are dismissed.\"\n\n17. Further, on the Issue of circumstantial evidence and in the matters related\nto the discharge of 'onus

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PNB FINANCE & INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

Section 2(42A) of the Act. 4. It is worth noting that various facts that were highlighted before the first appellate authority to establish that the investment was long term capital asset are : that the company had purchased Times Bank shares which were later converted into HDFC shares on amalgamation as long term investment vide resolution passed by the company

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" or" Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 6 43B], the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a cooperative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.” The words “ business

RIAZ MUNSHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain derived from sale of shares of M/s. EBOFPL has observed as under: “19. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and the relevant documentary evidences brought on record in the form of paper book in the light of Rule 18 (6) of ITAT Rules. Whether or not a person has discharged the burden cast upon

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Capital gains" or" Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 6 43B], the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a cooperative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.” The words “ business

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Capital gains" or" Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 6 43B], the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a cooperative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.” The words “ business

KANWAR SINGH TANWAR,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

capital gain\nof Rs 10,16,58,537/-, out of the abovecapital gain an amount of Rs\n6,53,00,317/- was claimed as a deduction u/s 54F...”,but the appellant\nassessee has not provided any documentary evidences regarding the shares\nwhich were sold by the appellant assesseeand receipt of such money. Thus,\nthe source of money towards the said

AMIT JINDAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 59(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16] Amit Jindal, Ito-59(3), 105, Defence Enclave, D-Block, Delhi-110092 Vs Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi -110002 Pan-Aflpj2122A Assessee Revenue

Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. and consequently the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. The relevant observation of the order of the Tribunal from para 19 onwards reads as under:- “19. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and the relevant documentary evidences brought

ACIT,, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. VEENA MIRDHA,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2008-09

capital gain’ only. There is no change in the status of the case and all the information was already submitted. There is no material information with the Ld. AO to establish escapement of income by the assessee. If the income is reassessed as business income it is merely a case of change of opinion and cited the decision

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

239 and 240 of the PB. (ix) Share Subscription Agreement dated 01.03.2016(Refer page no. 242 to 281 of the PB): The Share Subscription Agreement is a legal document governing the purchase of shares in the assessee company. It outlines the terms and conditions of the share purchase, such as the number of shares being issued, their price

ITO WARD-53(3), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU MADHAN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place……” 3. The Assessing Officer, the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 on the ground that he did not become the owner of the property

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT, MEERUT vs. PREM SAPRA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2021-22

capital gain which they had earned in pursuance of transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C, situated in Chandigarh and used for purchase of a new asset/residential house". ➤ 417 ITR 547, KishorbhaiHarjibhai Patel vs. ITO (Gujarat H.C.) in which the above cited SC judgment in Sanjeev Lal has been followed. ➤ 254 ITR 22, Balraj

MOHIT MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 16(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Mohit Mittal, Vs. Ito, 30, Tarun Enclave, Ward-16(1), Pitampura, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aiwpm9299F (Appellant) (Respondent)

239/- from sale of shares of a penny stock company. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of share transaction relating to shares of M/s. 2 | P a g e AY: 2014-15 Turbotech Engineering Ltd. In response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee denied the allegations

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX –V vs. KAPIL NAGPAL

capital gains resulted cannot be said to be perverse. Question (ii) is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Question (i) 19. Turning to question (i) whether the exemption under Section 54F could be availed of by the Assessee, it requires to be first noticed that in light of the decision of the Supreme Court