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

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

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

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)

253 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act') against the order dated 23 December 2021 passed by Commissioner of Income (Appeals) - 42, New Delhi [CIT(A)] under 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

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 :-

253/- either as cost of acquisition/improvement or as cost of transfer for computing capital gain. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that similar disallowance was made by the Revenue in assessment year 2007- 08. In first appeal the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the findings of Assessing Office. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal

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

253 of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 (the Act') against the order dated 23 December 2021 passed by\nCommissioner of Income (Appeals) - 42, New Delhi [CIT(A)] under section\n250 of the Act, on the following grounds:\nOn the facts, in law and in circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A):\nGeneral\n1. erred in holding that the capital

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

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

gains of Rs.593,48,24,274/-, capital\ngains aggregating to Rs.310,80,53,009/- were arising on account of sale of\nmutual funds acquired prior to 01/04/2017 and thus, the same was not\nliable to be taxed as per Article 13(3A) of the India Mauritius DTAA. In\nthis regards, the Panel considers it appropriate to direct

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)

section 253 (4) of the act, therefore , assessee cannot agitate the taxability of non compete fees for the 1st time before the tribunal as in no part of the order of Commissioner of appeals has considered and decided the issue of taxability of non compete fees. 28. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

4 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri, New Delhi. transactions in question is an adventure in nature of trade as defined under section 2(13) of the Act and that profits arising therefrom are chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” under section 28 of the I.T. Act. Correspondingly

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

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

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

4 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri, New Delhi. transactions in question is an adventure in nature of trade as defined under section 2(13) of the Act and that profits arising therefrom are chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” under section 28 of the I.T. Act. Correspondingly

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gain has been declared by the appellant. Notice u/s 158BD of the Act was to be issued to the appellant. In the second satisfaction, the succeeding officer relied on this reason and issued the notice. In other words neither the first officer nor the second one ever recorded the satisfaction that any undisclosed income of the appellant has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gain has been declared by the appellant. Notice u/s 158BD of the Act was to be issued to the appellant. In the second satisfaction, the succeeding officer relied on this reason and issued the notice. In other words neither the first officer nor the second one ever recorded the satisfaction that any undisclosed income of the appellant has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gain has been declared by the appellant. Notice u/s 158BD of the Act was to be issued to the appellant. In the second satisfaction, the succeeding officer relied on this reason and issued the notice. In other words neither the first officer nor the second one ever recorded the satisfaction that any undisclosed income of the appellant has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gain has been declared by the appellant. Notice u/s 158BD of the Act was to be issued to the appellant. In the second satisfaction, the succeeding officer relied on this reason and issued the notice. In other words neither the first officer nor the second one ever recorded the satisfaction that any undisclosed income of the appellant has been

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gain has been declared or not by Mani Kakkar and it was only for this purpose that notice was being issued under Section 158BD. The contention was that the satisfaction note did not record that the Assessing Officer assessing Kedarnath Gupta was satisfied, even prima facie, that the undisclosed income thrown up during the search belonged to the assessee