SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 90(2) of the Act as well as Article 13(4) of the Mauritius DTAA to emphasize that the gains arising from the transaction of sale of shares effected pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement dated 1st March 2011 held by the Petitioner in MIAL would not be liable to tax in India. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

gains.‖ 26. Learned counsel for the Revenue has relied upon Section 32 of the Act and has submitted that the effect of the said Section should be examined while computing short term 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 :-

section 48 of the Act. Therefore we are inclined to decide the issue of claim of administration expenses in favour of the revenue. Ultimately, the assessee may get the benefit of claim of these 12 expenses as business expenditure under the head business income. As such there is no impact for the same in this AY. 14. With regard

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)

26. In view of the above, the Assessee submits that the orders passed by the lower authorities denying the benefit of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAA for the A.Y. 2012-13 are unsustainable and bad in law. IV. The capital gain arising on the securities purchased before 1 April 2017 has been grandfathered and cannot be brought

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

section 68. The Ld. CIT(A) decided against the assessee who brought the matter before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal held that when the assessee sold shares, working of CSL was not above board and it was only providing accommodation entry in the form of long term capital gain and short term capital gain to evade

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 69A. The assessee has contended that 4,000 shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. purchased from Corporate Stock Broking (P) Ltd. at a price of Rs. 13.09 per share in physical form. It has also been submitted that out of the 4,000 shares, 3000 shared were sold on 04/02/2014 for @Rs.677 per share and another 500 were sold

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

26 of 32 develop agricultural land to make it suitable for a housing colony. Thereafter he sub-divided the land into plots and gave them on 99 year lease. This was held to be a transfer in relation to a capital asset within the meaning of Section 12 B of the Income Tax Act 1922. One more fact distinguishing that

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

26 of 32 develop agricultural land to make it suitable for a housing colony. Thereafter he sub-divided the land into plots and gave them on 99 year lease. This was held to be a transfer in relation to a capital asset within the meaning of Section 12 B of the Income Tax Act 1922. One more fact distinguishing that

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section, for claiming the deduction on the\ncapital gains on the sale of the land, the first requirement is that capital gain\nshould arise from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years\nimmediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used\nby the assessee being an individual or his parent

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section (2) cannot be construed as bringing within the computation of capital gains an amount which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have accrued to the assessee or been received by him and it must be confined to cases where the actual consideration received for the transfer suppressed consideration, subsection (2) provides the statutory measure for determining

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section (2) cannot be construed as bringing within the computation of capital gains an amount which, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to have accrued to the assessee or been received by him and it must be confined to cases where the actual consideration received for the transfer suppressed consideration, subsection (2) provides the statutory measure for determining

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

capital gains taxation by the AO\n6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of\nthe existing arrangement\nPara 11 (page 24-27) ECL\nPara 11 (page 23-25) ECOM\n6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom\nBusiness from Onshore to offshore\nPara 12 (page 27-33) ECL\nPara 12 (page 26-31) ECOM\n6.3 Acquisition

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

section 2(47) of the Act and submitted, since the underlying assets are shares of Indian companies, the capital gain is taxable in India. So far as the issue of deduction of cost of acquisition, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned DRP. 20. We have considered rival submissions, both oral and in writing

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

26)was made to the builder through capital gain scheme account. Facts of the case are that the Ld. AO allowedthe deduction u/s 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs.23,23,208/- on the ground that the assesseehad made payment of Rs.23,23,208/- to M/s Sri Satya Sai Constructions (Developer) for the Construction of the property

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

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

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

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 80TTA of the Act in computation sheet. (Tax Effect Rs. 2,060/-) 6. That the learned Assessing Officer has further erred both in law and on facts in levying interest of Rs. 9,486/- u/s 234B of the Act which is not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. Prayer: It is therefore, prayed

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

26 Saket Kanoi revenue has taken in the present case, as evident from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s following observation : “The appellants (i.e., Union of India) contend that, acceptance of the respondent’s submission that double taxation avoidance is not permissible unless the tax is paid in both countries is contrary to the intendment of section