TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that lease for a period of ten years of plant and machinery along with land and building was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2 (14) of the Act? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

1. The core issue before the Hon’ble bench in the above case is ‘whether the Long Term capital Gain earned by the assessee on sale of scrip of M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd during FY2014-15 is genuine and eligible for benefit of section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961? 2. The company M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd, its promoter directors

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

254 (SC)  Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 (SC)  Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC)  Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC)  United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC)  Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)  Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

254 (SC)  Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs CIT: 314 ITR 62 (SC)  Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.: 37 ITR 1 (SC)  Metal Box (P) Limited (1969): 73 ITR 53 (SC)  United Commercial Bank vs. CIT 240 ITR 355 (SC)  Bharat Earth Movers: 245 ITR 428 (SC)  Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 confirmed

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 148, the reassessment had been initiated without any basis and information and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, as noted above, no new documents were discovered by the survey proceedings in January 2014 - all of the documents in question had been in the hands of the government in 2006. The reason that

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

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

254 ITR 434. It was pointed out that in this judgment the Supreme Court had considered its earlier decision in CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 and distinguished the same on the ground that the factual matrix and the provision of law considered therein were entirely different. A few other authorities were also cited before

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

254 ITR 434. It was pointed out that in this judgment the Supreme Court had considered its earlier decision in CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 and distinguished the same on the ground that the factual matrix and the provision of law considered therein were entirely different. A few other authorities were also cited before

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

254 ITR 434. It was pointed out that in this judgment the Supreme Court had considered its earlier decision in CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 and distinguished the same on the ground that the factual matrix and the provision of law considered therein were entirely different. A few other authorities were also cited before

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

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

1 SCC 770 at para 4) e) J. M. Biswas vs. N. K. Bhattacharjee & Ors. (2002) (4) SCC 68. 48. Even, the Act itself provides for rectification when there occur changes in the quantum of capital gains in sub- sections 7B, 10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed

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

1 SCC 770 at para 4) e) J. M. Biswas vs. N. K. Bhattacharjee & Ors. (2002) (4) SCC 68. 48. Even, the Act itself provides for rectification when there occur changes in the quantum of capital gains in sub- sections 7B, 10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed

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

1 SCC 770 at para 4) e) J. M. Biswas vs. N. K. Bhattacharjee & Ors. (2002) (4) SCC 68. 48. Even, the Act itself provides for rectification when there occur changes in the quantum of capital gains in sub- sections 7B, 10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income