DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

sections, it is quite evident that the Act does not prescribe any provision, which specifies that the period of holding should be decisive factor for determining whether the asset in a capital asset or stock in trade. It is also pertinent to note that the Act only prescribed that if shares are held in a company for not more than

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

245 ITR 492 (Del.)  CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del.)  Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del) Reliance in this regard is also placed on following decisions where the change in treatment of nature of profits arising from sale of shares, accepted by the Department to be on account of capital gains

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

245 ITR 492 (Del.)  CIT v. Dalmia Promoters Developers (P) Ltd: 200 CTR 426 (Del.)  Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital: 300 ITR 75 (Del) Reliance in this regard is also placed on following decisions where the change in treatment of nature of profits arising from sale of shares, accepted by the Department to be on account of capital gains

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Capital Gains” which was been accepted by the Revenue as such. In absence of any change in facts more particularly qua the agreement dated 05.07.2007 and mode of computation of transfer price contained in Schedule 1 thereof, the Revenue now cannot be permitted to change its stand and argue that actual consideration received by the assessee on transfer of share

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

245-0 of the IT Act, 1961, in Cyril Eugene Pereira's case . Section 245S of the Act provides that the Advance Ruling pronounced by the Authority under Section 245R shall be binding only : (a) on the applicant who had sought it; 40 Saket Kanoi (b) in respect to the transaction in relation to which the ruling had been sought

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains and the object of the exemption and to ascertain its true import. The main purpose of section 54 is to give relief in respect of profit on sale of residential house. If an assessee is entitled to relief on fulfillment of either of two constructions viz purchase or construction, it would be improper to hold that on fulfillment

SMT. HARMINDER KAUR,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

capital gain scheme account within limit provided section 139(1) of the Act. (ii) The booking of flat is not purchase of flat because as per agreement to sale, construction of the flat was to be carried out and it was not completed till completion of assessment. (iii) The booking of the flat is also not construction because under CBDT

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

ZILE SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyzile Singh, Vs. Pr. Cit, H. No. 263, Sector-8, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana Pan: Ajeps1883J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain of Rs. 54,76,795/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The assessee submitted relevant documentary evidence. The documentary evidence shows that there is a letter of the assessee to Mr. Bishnu Kumar Bansal, director of Surya Build Co Pvt. Ltd. According to that letter written by the assessee, he is forwarding

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

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 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee allowed the sale of shares as LTCG/STCG instead of business income and in respect of the gift of Rs.7.92 crores, he upheld the action

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 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee allowed the sale of shares as LTCG/STCG instead of business income and in respect of the gift of Rs.7.92 crores, he upheld the action

M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

capital receipt not liable to tax. 5. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to allow deduction of education cess and secondary higher education cess of Rs.54,21,514. 5.1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating the claim

CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI L/H OF LATE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 35(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assesseeis allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

245 ITR 727 (Del.), the benefit under Section 54 (1) shall be available where substantial amount has been made for purchase of new house and as per judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Bharti C. Kothari 244 ITR 352 (Cal.) deduction under Section 54 shall be available where payment

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

section 45(2) of the Act, takes place only when the assessee, by his voluntary act, converts/treats the capital asset into stock in trade and not otherwise. 3.011 The Ld. AR further submitted that there may be many instances where an assessee may seek permission from a regulatory /development authority for change in the land use. Therefore, seeking such change

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

section 45(2) of the Act, takes place only when the assessee, by his voluntary act, converts/treats the capital asset into stock in trade and not otherwise. 3.011 The Ld. AR further submitted that there may be many instances where an assessee may seek permission from a regulatory /development authority for change in the land use. Therefore, seeking such change

AMRIT CORP LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

section 45(2) of the Act, takes place only when the assessee, by his voluntary act, converts/treats the capital asset into stock in trade and not otherwise. 3.011 The Ld. AR further submitted that there may be many instances where an assessee may seek permission from a regulatory /development authority for change in the land use. Therefore, seeking such change

ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. AMRIT CORP LTD., GHAZIABAD

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2007-08 Ay: 2008-09

section 45(2) of the Act, takes place only when the assessee, by his voluntary act, converts/treats the capital asset into stock in trade and not otherwise. 3.011 The Ld. AR further submitted that there may be many instances where an assessee may seek permission from a regulatory /development authority for change in the land use. Therefore, seeking such change