DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

VIKRAM SINGH,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 2(5), NOIDA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmavikram Singh, Vs. Ito, C/O. Chaman Singh, B-6 Ward-2(5), (Basement) Js Arcade, Near Noida Bikanerwala, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 65, Sector-18, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jmlps3035M

capital gain of Rs. 1,31,17,537/- was added to the income of the Assessee. As it was challenged in appeal before the ld CIT(A), the ld First Appellate Authority did not decide the appeal on merits but passed the impugned order by dismissing the appeal for non compliance of mandatory provision of section 249(4

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 acknowledged by the Cinepolis group vide e-mail dated 08.10.2007 (page 163 of the paperbook). 6.1 Considering the aforesaid, CIPL was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 06.11.2007 and as agreed the appellant and Mr. Deepak Marda were appointed as Joint Managing Directors of CIPL. Also, Mr. Deepak Marda was allotted 10,000 equity shares and the remaining

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

B-III -Analysis of Board minutes and various tables 13 (I) ECL- Mauritius; persons authorised as per Board minutes along 120-125 with purpose of authorisation; 14 (II) ECOM- Mauritius; persons authorised as per Board minutes 126-133 along with purpose of authorisation 15 (III) ECML- Mauritius; persons authorised as per Board minutes 134-136 along with purpose of authorisation

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital of that concern, the exemption under section\n11 or section 12 shall not be denied in relation to any income other than the income\narising to the trust or the institution from such investment, by reason only that the\nfunds of the trust or the institution have been invested in a concern in which such\nperson has a substantial

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

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

gains in regard to enhancement of compensation received in respect of land that has been acquired, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) There must be a transfer of a capital asset (ii) the compensation or consideration for such transfer has to be enhanced by a court, Tribunal or other authority 42. Two questions that have arisen in the past

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

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

gains in regard to enhancement of compensation received in respect of land that has been acquired, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) There must be a transfer of a capital asset (ii) the compensation or consideration for such transfer has to be enhanced by a court, Tribunal or other authority 42. Two questions that have arisen in the past

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains in regard to enhancement of compensation received in respect of land that has been acquired, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) There must be a transfer of a capital asset (ii) the compensation or consideration for such transfer has to be enhanced by a court, Tribunal or other authority 42. Two questions that have arisen in the past

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains in regard to enhancement of compensation received in respect of land that has been acquired, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) There must be a transfer of a capital asset (ii) the compensation or consideration for such transfer has to be enhanced by a court, Tribunal or other authority 42. Two questions that have arisen in the past

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

249 was offered to tax under section 45 read with section 48 of the Act. 20. After narrating the entire facts and background of the case as above, Mr. Vohra submitted that the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) cannot substitute the actual sale consideration with notional consideration or fair market value for computing the capital gains

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

249 (1st Floor), Preet Vihar, Delhi purchased vide registered sale deed dated 13/10/2017 against sale of old residential house B – 131, sector – 5, Noida on 06/02/2017 for Rs.1,60,00,000/-. The Ld. Counsel invited reference to para 6 of the assessment order are reproduced below: “As evident from above, assessee’s share in the property purchased on 13/10/2017 comes

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

b) of Explanation 1 to section 2(42A) of the Act. Such complete period will be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the indexed cost of acquisition [Refer Arun Shungloo Trust v. CIT: 249 CTR 294 (Del.)]. 35. Therefore, applying the aforesaid provisions to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that the assessee company

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHARDA KOCHHAR

The appeal is disposed of,

4 of 10 Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), [2009] 315 ITR 1. In the said decision, the Supreme Court noticed the object, purpose and why Section 45(5) was enacted with effect from 1st April, 1988, in the following words:- “Section 45(1) of the 1961 Act speaks about capital gains arising out of “transfer