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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

section 47(iv) of the Act and was wrongly offered to tax by the assessee in its return of income filed on 29.09.2016 for AY 2016-17. 12. In this regard, the AO has raised two fold objections. Firstly, according to the AO, the new claim of the assessee is an absolutely new fact presented before the Tribunal, which

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

254,81,69,490/- (-) ₹ 1,91,91,928/-] from the full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer of shares for the purposes of arriving at chargeable capital gain under Section

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

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1,22,86,820/- Rs. 8,90,66,252/- 6.2 Provisions of Section 10(38) provides as follows: "(38) any income arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund where- (a) the transaction of sale of such equity share or unit is entered

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

1,22,86,820/- Rs. 8,90,66,252/- 6.2 Provisions of Section 10(38) provides as follows: "(38) any income arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund where- (a) the transaction of sale of such equity share or unit is entered

SNEH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-32(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on both counts on merit as well as jurisdictional issue raised by the assessee in the additional ground of appeal

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

1-4: -The Ld. AO has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs.21,66,00,000/- u/s 45 r.w.s. 54F( 4) by denying exemption claimed u/s 54F in respect of long-term capital gains arising on the sale of shares by alleging that the assessee failed to construct a residential house within the prescribed period. 12 The facts

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub- section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain on sale of Punjab Khor land claimed it exempt u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. 4.1 That the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly invoked the powers u/s 251 of the Act to enhance the assessment without appreciating the fact that the said section cannot be pressed to substitute the view/decision of the assessing officer. 4.2 That

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

capital and, hence, the gain or loss relating to its appreciation or depreciation is to be treated as on revenue account, ie, income or expenditure, as the case may be. The question is: Whether, for purposes of computing total income under the Income tax Act, such income or loss has to be allowed as deduction on year-to- year basis

RRPR HOLDING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, Grounds No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Gains, the return of loss has to be filed within the time allowed under S. 139(1). 10. Thus, a bare reading of these provisions gives an infallible impression that to be entitled to carry forward the business loss or capital loss, the assessee is required to file the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Section

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

1) of the Act. He has also not followed the mandate of section 145(3) of the Act. The factors enumerated by the A.O. in his orders under appeal and to clarify the issue in particular it is submitted that: (a) The stock in trade in respect of the three projects is no longer a capital asset. In any event

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

1) of the Act. He has also not followed the mandate of section 145(3) of the Act. The factors enumerated by the A.O. in his orders under appeal and to clarify the issue in particular it is submitted that: (a) The stock in trade in respect of the three projects is no longer a capital asset. In any event