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

capital gains on sale of mutual\nfund units as taxable in India and making an addition of INR 297,13,00,571\nin the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section\n144C(13) of the Act.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO\nerred in levying

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)

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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)

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where- (a) the assessee,- (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

SAIF PARTNERS INDIA IV LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION-3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gain in India. The ld. CIT has clearly ignored the fact the assessee has neither claimed nor carried forward such capital loss in its return of income filed in India. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, has laid down the following ratio: "A bare reading of section 263

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains arising to the assessee on sale\nof the land as per the conditions laid down in the said section. The order in the\ncase of the assessee passed in January, 2006 relates to AY 2006-07and is not for\nthe AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, which are the relevant years for the determination\nof the land

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

263 ITR 706) (SC) wherein the validity of Circular No. 789 dated 13\nApril 2000 was in question, the Supreme Court has held that the CBDT\nwas justified in issuing the aforesaid circular, since the action of the tax\nauthorities bringing to tax the capital gains earned by Mauritian residents\nwas contrary to the provisions of Article

MUKUL ROHATGI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain', secondly, the nil ALV or lower ALV as discussed in regard to above stated properties, in the above part of this order vide Paragraph No. 07 to 40, and non-initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271C of the Act, whether these attract the revision provisions under Section 263

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

gain, details tabulated as under: S.No. Particular Amount i) Sales Consideration Received 1,09,00,000 ii) Emaar MGF Land Ltd 24,86,030 Compensation Credit: iii) Total Consideration 1,33,86,030 iv) Less: Less: Indexed Cost -2,15,28,790 v) Long Term Capital Loss 81,42,760 3.4 The Ld AO in the final order dated

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

Section 32(3) of units of UTI for the purpose of holding that the unit is a share." 6.6 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncement cited supra, we are of the view that the CIT(A) is 37 Saket Kanoi justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,34,99,407 as short term capital gain

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings also, the assessee filed written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his order. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned income shown

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Capital Gain. The Ld. PCIT exercising power conferred under section 263 of the Act, on perusal of the record found

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263 of the Act. 8. It was further argued that the source of cash found in the course of search is the issue which is an integral part of the computation of capital gains

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263 of the Act. 8. It was further argued that the source of cash found in the course of search is the issue which is an integral part of the computation of capital gains

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 263 of the Act. 8. It was further argued that the source of cash found in the course of search is the issue which is an integral part of the computation of capital gains

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)

gain was utilized by her in the investment in capital assets. Since the assessee has claimed the exemption u/s 54F, the AO proceeded to verify the above aspect whether the assessee has rightly claimed the exemption u/s 54F in AY 2013-14 and as per the provisions of section 54F, the limitation period ends in this assessment year

AJAY KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-2 there under. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143[3] for A.Y. 2016-17 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations etc. into

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) DELHI-2, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

Section 263 of the\nAct viz. Order being erroneous in law is not satisfied.\"\n(emphasis supplied)\n26. In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s.\nChandan Magraj Parmar (supra) this Court has observed as\nunder :-\n\"7. When it is not disputed that the land concerned would\nnot fall under the definition of capital asset, the question

ACIT, CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INVEST CORP , DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal\nof the assessee for the AY 2017-18 is partly allowed as indicated\nabove and appeal of the assessee for the AY 2018-19 is dismissed

sections": [ "147", "263", "143(3)", "48", "143(1)", "144B" ], "issues": "Whether the 'option money' received under a joint venture agreement is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, and whether capitalized interest and professional expenses can be deducted for computing capital gains