COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

1 of 23 $~7&8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Satyen Sethi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR O R D E R % 19.04.2012 Having heard learned counsel

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

1 of 23 $~7&8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Satyen Sethi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR O R D E R % 19.04.2012 Having heard learned counsel

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

1 of 23 $~7&8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Satyen Sethi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR O R D E R % 19.04.2012 Having heard learned counsel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

1 of 23 $~7&8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 CIT ..... Appellant Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Satyen Sethi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR O R D E R % 19.04.2012 Having heard learned counsel

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and only following expenses are eligible to be deducted from the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head capital gains: 1. Which are incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Capital assets and 2. The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

1) of the IT Act and case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee is a Director of M/s Effectron Luminex Ltd Holding 47.9% equity. In this case order u/s 250(6) of the IT Act was passed by the CIT(Appeal) on 24.11.2011. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground of late filing of appeal

GOPAL SARAN DARBARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

1) of the IT Act and case was selected for scrutiny. The assessee is a Director of M/s Effectron Luminex Ltd Holding 47.9% equity. In this case order u/s 250(6) of the IT Act was passed by the CIT(Appeal) on 24.11.2011. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the ground of late filing of appeal

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

gain. 20. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC): In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced the relevant part of the order of CIT (Appeals) wherein he observed that in the assessment order the AO referred to the general modus operandi of bogus accommodation entry and thereafter, he has further referred to statement of parties

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

section 250 of the Act, on the following grounds: On the facts, in law and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A): General 1. erred in holding that the capital gains

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

1) That the CIT (Appeals)/ AO has erred on facts and in law in taxing the income from long term listed equities of Rs 3,19,01,839 declared by the assessee as capital gains as business income, without going into the facts of the relevant year and ignoring the CBDT’s circular. 2 2) That the CIT (Appeals

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital of that concern, the exemption under section 11 or section 12 shall not be denied in relation to any income other than the income arising to the trust or the institution from such investment, by reason only that the funds of the trust or the institution have been invested in a concern in which such person has a substantial

M/S. GURU KRIPA AGRO FOODS,HARYANA vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1 of the assessee being devoid of merit is dismissed. Ground Nos. 2 to 5 6. Apropos this ground, we have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the relevant material on record of the Tribunal inter alia the assessment order, impugned order, written submissions of the appellant and paper book filed by the assessee spread over 42 pages

SH. BRIJ BHUSHAN TAYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

1. This is assesssee's appeal filed against the order passed by learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act dated. 28.3.2014. 2. The Issue involved in the present appeal is regarding computation Long term capital gain

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter P a g e | 2 Azizul Ghani (AY: 2015-16) referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of assessment order dated 22.12.2017 of Ld. AO/ITO, Ward 63(3), Delhi, u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY: 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gains instead of business income which the transactions actually are. Further, there is no parity in the capital contribution of shares with the profit sharing ratios. 3.11 Further, the Finance Act, 2006 amended the provisions of section 14A w.e.f. 01-04- 2007 with which the AO was empowered to disallow expenses relating to earning of tax free income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gains instead of business income which the transactions actually are. Further, there is no parity in the capital contribution of shares with the profit sharing ratios. 3.11 Further, the Finance Act, 2006 amended the provisions of section 14A w.e.f. 01-04- 2007 with which the AO was empowered to disallow expenses relating to earning of tax free income

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

250/- on 27/03/2018 was filed by claiming exemption of Rs.96,00,000/- u/s 54 of I.T. Act. Admittedly, the appellant had not invested in specified Capital Gain Scheme, however, it is evident that the Appellant purchased a residential apartment on 13/10/2017 i.e. within two years from the date of sale of his old residential house which was sold on 06/02/2017

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

250 Advertisement and promotion for DC -1 GB CF card for promo 7,80,000 Advertisement and promotion for DC POS MERCHANDISING, PHOTOFAIR 19,02,556 Shows and seminar for copiers 18,94,916 Black & white and colour advertisement for copiers 18,53,126 Advertisement and promotion - Expenses BIS-PGA 3,12,236 Total 12,10,48,124 (The table