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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

RAJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-58(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla

sections 54 and 54F of the Incometax Act.” 11.6.2 Regarding applicability of the circulars for booking of flats, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of RL Sood (supra) has observed as under: “2. The assessee was the owner of a residential house which he sold on 22nd Sept., 1981, for a total consideration of Rs. 2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

gain and to or over which the employer of the persons employed therein has the right of access or control”. 2013:DHC:2957-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 30 of 45 55. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘article’ to mean “A particular material thing (of a specified class); a commodity; a piece

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

gain and to or over which the employer of the persons employed therein has the right of access or control”. 2013:DHC:2956-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 30 of 45 55. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘article’ to mean “A particular material thing (of a specified class); a commodity; a piece

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

gain and to or over which the employer of the persons employed therein has the right of access or control”. 2013:DHC:2955-DB ITR Nos. 49-50/1996, ITA Nos. 151/2002, 302/2002 & 480/2005 Page 30 of 45 55. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘article’ to mean “A particular material thing (of a specified class); a commodity; a piece

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

2) and 142(1) of the Act were\nissued and served upon the assessee.\n\n3.\nThe assessee is a Director in M/s. KTV Projects Pvt. Ltd. and received\nsalary from the same. Further, the assessee declared income from capital gain and\nincome from other sources during the year under consideration. In response to\nthe above notices

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

2. We note that the issue of Long Term Capital Gain itself arises out of the Apartment Buyers Agreement [„Agreement‟] for the property which was entered into by the assessees‟ on 18 February 2016 and thus prior to the date of sale. 3. The ITAT has however come to conclude that the aforesaid Agreement was in respect of an under

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)

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO have erred in not taking into account all the bills and vouchers in respect of construction of the new property. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in taxing the capital gain

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax II

Appeal is dismissed

256/-, i.e. much more than the amount of capital gain. Reference was made to Circular No. 471 dated 15th October, 1986 [1986] 162 ITR (Stat.) 41. It was observed that Section 54 of the Act says that assessee could have constructed the house and not that the construction should have necessarily been completed. Noticing that it was not easy

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - XV vs. BHARTI MISHRA

gains from transfer of any long-term capital not being a residential house could claim benefit under the said Section provided, any one of the following three conditions were satisfied; (i) the assessee had within a period of one year before the sale, purchased a residential house; (ii) within two years after the date of transfer of the original capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Capital Gain and balance amount is deleted All the grounds of appeal relating to this addition are adjudicated accordingly.” 12. As observed above, Ld.CIT(A) has passed his findings on the basis of the details of acquisition made by the assessee of the shares sold during the year in 04 trenches and all the necessary details alongwith evidences are filed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Capital Gain and balance amount is deleted All the grounds of appeal relating to this addition are adjudicated accordingly.” 12. As observed above, Ld.CIT(A) has passed his findings on the basis of the details of acquisition made by the assessee of the shares sold during the year in 04 trenches and all the necessary details alongwith evidences are filed

CIT vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD

Section 2(14) defines a capital asset as property of any kind held by the assessee. This includes not only tangible asset but also intangible rights. Income tax assessment in case of above assessee for the assessment year 2001-02 was completed in January, 2004 at an income of Rs.7,02,73,350/- after scrutiny. Audit scrutiny revealed that

SAPIEN FUNDS LTD,MAURITIUS vs. CIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains on derivative transactions were not taxed under the Income Tax Act rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessee is entitled for the benefit of Article 11 of the Indo Mauritius DTAA as the assessee is tax resident of Mauritius. The ld. 4 I.T.A. No. 2890/Del/2022 Counsel submits that for the assessment year 2017-18 the order

JAI PARKASH,FATEHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2018-19 Jai Parkash, Vs. Principal Commissoiner Of Bhattu Road, Income Tax, Rohtak Near Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad – 125050 Haryana (Pan: Amypk5328D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

256 – 257) of paper book) “16. Since the order of the 7 AO is based on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam HUF (Supra) on the issue of interest received by the assessee under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act, it can be at best be said to be a debatable issue on which two views

PRAGATI POWER CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is\nallowed

capital Exp. #\n43,698,289\nIncome from Business/ Profession\n197,479,545\nGross Total Income\n1,875,866,703\nLess: Deduction u/s 801Α\n1,875,866,703\nTotal Income\n5.1\nThe assessee has explained that it has claimed deduction under section\n80-IA of the Act on the basis of the certificate issued by the Auditor in form No.\n10CCB

PURI OIL MILLS LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

2) CIT v Reliance Industries Ltd. (Bom)-339 ITR 632 3. Balaji Alloys & Ors. Vs. CIT(A) (J & K) 333 ITR 335 15. The documents produced by the assessee and the contentions raised by the assessee had been adjudicated by the A.O. during the original assessment wherein the A.O. has specifically examined the issue of capital subsidy received/accrued of Rs.4.80

PURI OIL MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

2) CIT v Reliance Industries Ltd. (Bom)-339 ITR 632 3. Balaji Alloys & Ors. Vs. CIT(A) (J & K) 333 ITR 335 15. The documents produced by the assessee and the contentions raised by the assessee had been adjudicated by the A.O. during the original assessment wherein the A.O. has specifically examined the issue of capital subsidy received/accrued of Rs.4.80