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)

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 22.12.2016 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of case are that the assessee filed return

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

4 of 23 chargeable as short term capital gain. He held that the paper division was a separate unit for which accounts were being maintained separately and the profits were being worked out separately. Thus, the respondent-assessee was claiming depreciation for each unit/division separately and when the entire unit itself had been sold, no block of assets was left

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

The appeals are disposed of

4 of 23 chargeable as short term capital gain. He held that the paper division was a separate unit for which accounts were being maintained separately and the profits were being worked out separately. Thus, the respondent-assessee was claiming depreciation for each unit/division separately and when the entire unit itself had been sold, no block of assets was left

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

4 of 23 chargeable as short term capital gain. He held that the paper division was a separate unit for which accounts were being maintained separately and the profits were being worked out separately. Thus, the respondent-assessee was claiming depreciation for each unit/division separately and when the entire unit itself had been sold, no block of assets was left

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

4 of 23 chargeable as short term capital gain. He held that the paper division was a separate unit for which accounts were being maintained separately and the profits were being worked out separately. Thus, the respondent-assessee was claiming depreciation for each unit/division separately and when the entire unit itself had been sold, no block of assets was left

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 :-

4 Description Amount Salaries and other benefits 7,56,809 Entertainment 2,18,125.58 Professional charges (including 39,21,998.97 management fees paid to M/s. Kotak Securities of Rs.36,67,416.97) Vehicle running & maintenance 1,82,480.70 Donations 3,00,000 Loss on sale of assets 1,34,838.34 Security expenses 2,06,556 Travelling expenses 5,64,199 Membership

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

4. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 16.11.2007 declaring total income at Rs.4,81,560/-. The return was processed uls 143(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

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

4. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 16.11.2007 declaring total income at Rs.4,81,560/-. The return was processed uls 143(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

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

capital gains not taxable in India.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "13(4)", "6(3)", "13(3A)", "13(36)", "250", "90(2)", "90(4

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961", "Section 143(3) of the Act", "Section 142(3) of the Act", "Section 54B of the Act", "Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 81 of Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954", "Section 47(viii) of the Act", "Section 54EC of the Act", "Section 255(4) of the Act" ], "issues": "Whether

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

250 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. 3) That the CIT (Appeals)/AO has erred on facts and in law in increasing the disallowance u/s 14A by Rs 77,82,133, without factoring the assessee himself had disallowed

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

4. The shares in question were listed on the BSE SME Platform on March 19, 2013. 5. Within 15 months of listing the share prices of this scrip rose many fold reaching around Rs 590/- per share in May-June 2014. 6. Again by grand lucky co-incidence assessee was able to sell his shares acquired @ Rs 5 per share

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section, as construed, would apply uniformly for all capital assets, i.e., drawing no exception for any particular class or category of the specified assets, as the 'right' shares. No addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) would thus arise in the undisputed facts of the instant case, and the assessee succeeds. Conclusion 4.6 We may finally discuss the issue from

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section, as construed, would apply uniformly for all capital assets, i.e., drawing no exception for any particular class or category of the specified assets, as the 'right' shares. No addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) would thus arise in the undisputed facts of the instant case, and the assessee succeeds. Conclusion 4.6 We may finally discuss the issue from

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

4 assessment years. Since the said property was let out, no 13 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 depreciation was claimed on the same under the Income-tax Act since the date of its acquisition. The value of the said property remained the same in the books and the depreciation chart. Details of the assets and depreciation claimed thereon are mentioned

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

4 assessment years. Since the said property was let out, no 13 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 depreciation was claimed on the same under the Income-tax Act since the date of its acquisition. The value of the said property remained the same in the books and the depreciation chart. Details of the assets and depreciation claimed thereon are mentioned

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

4 assessment years. Since the said property was let out, no 13 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 depreciation was claimed on the same under the Income-tax Act since the date of its acquisition. The value of the said property remained the same in the books and the depreciation chart. Details of the assets and depreciation claimed thereon are mentioned

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