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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253,00,000 4 Short-term capital gain to be allocated RS. 12,700,000 to individual’s i.e. Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs Radhika Roy for assessment year 2009 – 10 in equal ratio Therefore the report show that the long-term/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs. Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 would be modified as under:- serial

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253,00,000 4 Short-term capital gain to be allocated RS. 12,700,000 to individual’s i.e. Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs Radhika Roy for assessment year 2009 – 10 in equal ratio Therefore the report show that the long-term/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs. Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 would be modified as under:- serial

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253,00,000 4 Short-term capital gain to be allocated RS. 12,700,000 to individual’s i.e. Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs Radhika Roy for assessment year 2009 – 10 in equal ratio Therefore the report show that the long-term/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs. Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 would be modified as under:- serial

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

253,00,000 4 Short-term capital gain to be allocated RS. 12,700,000 to individual’s i.e. Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs Radhika Roy for assessment year 2009 – 10 in equal ratio Therefore the report show that the long-term/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs. Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 would be modified as under:- serial

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)

3. The assessee, Essar Communications Ltd., has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.340/Del/2022 for AY 2012-13 :- “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, ECL respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under Section 253 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act') against the order dated 23 December 2021 passed

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

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

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

3. The assessee, Essar Communications Ltd., has raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No.340/Del/2022 for AY 2012-13 :- “Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, ECL respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal under Section 253 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act') against the order dated 23 December 2021 passed

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') against the final order dated 23 January 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2)(2), Delhi ('Ld. AO') under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') as per the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP') under section 144C

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

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

section 142 and 143 clearly suggests that the assessing officer may also act on the material gathered by him. The word 'material' clearly shows that the assessing officer is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and the like, and that he may act on material which may not strictly speaking be accepted evidence in a court

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ARJUN PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.77,04,873/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus land development expenditure.” 4. The facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed return of income

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MOHINDER PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs.77,04,873/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus land development expenditure.” 4. The facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and filed return of income

SH. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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

Section 2(14) (i) of the Act defines a capital asset as not including stock in trade. If the assessee held the shares as "stock in trade", and not as investment, then such shares would stand excluded from the definition of "short term capital asset", and the profit earned on the sale of such shares would not be exigible

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

MANISHA JUNEJA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimanisha Juneja Sawhney, Vs. The Cit, W-31, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi International Taxation-3, Pan: Bjgps5452N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) read with section 263 of income tax act. Therefore, he submitted that there is no error in order of learned assessing officer with respect to above two issues. c. With respect to issue of due enquiry he referred to decision of coordinate bench in case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs deputy Commissioner of income tax 164/AHD/2018 for assessment year

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

capital gains would be chargeable in some cases where the cost of acquisition was Nil and hence, it is the statute which empowers the authorities to levy fees, charges or taxes. In the absence of such power, there is no merit in levy of fees under section 234E of the Act. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

capital gains would be chargeable in some cases where the cost of acquisition was Nil and hence, it is the statute which empowers the authorities to levy fees, charges or taxes. In the absence of such power, there is no merit in levy of fees under section 234E of the Act. 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused

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.

section 111A of the Act. The appellant has claimed that he has held the said shares as investment. The appellant has claimed that whether a particular holding of shares is by way of investment or forms part of stock-in-trade is a matter which is within the knowledge of the person who holds the same. The appellant has claimed

ITO, WARD-5(4) vs. MODERN HOME CARE PRODUCTS LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. M/S. Modern Home Care Ward-5(4), Products Ltd, New Delhi 4, Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of the act was passed on 20/2/2001 determining the total taxable income of the assessee of Rs 29473513/– against the returned income of ₹ 1 034649/–. 10. The assessee carried matter before the learned commissioner of income tax appeals – V III, New Delhi. The learned commissioner appeals vide order dated 21/3/2002 has held that the ₹ 1.75 crores received