ROOP KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

capital gain arises. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the assessment order so as to exercise jurisdiction under section 263

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

capital gain arises. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the assessment order so as to exercise jurisdiction under section 263

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 of the Income Tax Act, which provided a choice to assessee to adopt the Act or DTAA whichever is more beneficial, the assessee sought the benefit of India - Mauritius DTAA. Heavy reliance, is placed on the Protocol issued by Ministry of Finance dated 10.05.2016 and 29.08.2016, wherein, the “investments made prior to 01.04.2017 have been grandfathered” and even

MANISHA JUNEJA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. CIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimanisha Juneja Sawhney, Vs. The Cit, W-31, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi International Taxation-3, Pan: Bjgps5452N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 of income tax act vide order dated 29/12/2018 wherein only addition has been made by learned assessing officer on account of computation of capital gain. He submitted that original computation of capital gain was INR 53010040 whereas revised total capital gain computed by learned assessing officer pursuant to order under section

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 28(va) in the context of sale of shares and held that the long term capital gain on sale of those assets cannot be disregarded and the income there from cannot be brought to tax as business income u/s.28(va) - Para 10 &11. 10. The Delhi Bench of IT AT in the case of Hulas Rahul Gupta

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)

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

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain on sale of equity shares of Indian company SML Isuzu Ltd. by considering the fair market value of shares as Rs. 393 per share instead of Rs. 383.43 per shares being the agreed sale price as per the share purchase agreement entered between the assessee and Isuzu Motors Ltd., Japan being two unrelated parties. The assessee had specifically

CHARBUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

263 of the I.T. Act. It is also well settled Law that validity of the re-assessment proceedings are to be judged on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. It is also settled Law that while granting sanction under section 151 of the 7 ITA.No.4749/Del./2019 M/s. Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

capital gains as declared by the assessee. Without making any deliberation on the merit of this action of the AO, we are of the view that decision taken by the AO cannot be held as unsustainable or not in accordance with law. 30. From operative part of the impugned order, we note that the CIT has remitted all three issues

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

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain earned/claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act aggregating to Rs. 19.02 crores in Assessment Year 2014-15 and 2015-16 in respect of two scrips M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. and M/s Swift IT Infrastructures & Services Ltd, which were different from the scrip in the instant year, namely M/s KGN Industries Ltd. The Ld. AR also submitted

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

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

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