SHRI BASANT BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha

PANKAJ BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR,CIT (CENTRAL), GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

capital gains of Rs.7,37,78,840/-. The A.O. on these facts proceeded to frame assessment under section 153B read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 18.12.2018 in the present case and has accepted the returned income after examining the issue in detail after calling for the 68 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 show-caused the assessee to explain why the following items should not be Page 6 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 excluded from the profits derived from the eligible business for the purposes of deduction u/s 80IA as although the receipts are attributable to the primary/preferred business, they could not be said to have been “derived from the business

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

263 show-caused the assessee to explain why the following items should not be Page 6 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 excluded from the profits derived from the eligible business for the purposes of deduction u/s 80IA as although the receipts are attributable to the primary/preferred business, they could not be said to have been “derived from the business

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

263 ITR 706), (e) Vodafone International holdings B.V Vs Union of India & Anr 341 ITR 1 [2012]” 5.3 In view of the aforesaid submissions and case laws, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is a resident of Mauritius and entitled to the benefit given under India-Mauritius Tax treaty and more so, the investments so made by assessee – appellant

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

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

1 (SC) ii) United Commercial Bank Ltd.Vs.CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688(SC) iii) East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs.CIT(1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) Page 36 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. iv) CIT Vs. Chugandas & Co. (1964) 55 ITR 17(SC) v) S G Mercantile Corporation

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)

1. That on facts and circumstances of case, CIT has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in relation to issue of computation of long term capital gain on alleged ground that order passed by AO u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 2(i) That issue of long term capital gain was before

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

1. A2 Media Private Limited Unlisted equity shares Long Term Capital Loss on transfer - INR219,865,449 These shares were held by the Company for more than 24 months and accordingly, qualify as LTCA. Any gains or loss arising on transfer of such asset will be taxable as Long Term Capital Gains or Long Term Capital Loss respectively. On transfer

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

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital asset situate in India. ** ** ** Explanation 4.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the expression "through" shall mean and include and shall be deemed to have always meant and included ''by means of", "in consequence of" or "by reason of".' 7.1 Section 40 of the Act spells out what amounts are not deductible from the income

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).

1 crore under the head of income from other sources instead of income from 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

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

1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, a notice under section 148 was issued on 23.03.2016 calling upon the assessee to file its return of income after recording reasons under section 147 and obtaining necessary approval under section 151 as statutorily required. In response to the statutory notice and questionnaire issued by the A.O, the assessee appeared from time

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)

Section 144C of the Income Tax Act thereby proposing to make following variation to the return income of the assessee:- Particulars Amount (in Rs.) as Amount (in Rs.) as per revised return assessed of income A Business Income Income from -1,27,500 1,27,500 6 various projects as per return of income Add: Income from

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains of business or profession‖. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the computation would have to be made in accordance with Chapter IV D. The Tribunal stated that if the starting point of the computation of the total income was only the revenue relatable to India, then, only the proportionate expenses relating to India should have been deducted rather than deducting

HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

263 of the Act and since the provisions of Section 271 rws 274 of the Act specifically DO NOT contemplate the issue of notice, one can safely conclude that failure to issue a show cause notice does not invalidate the proceedings U/Section 271(l}(c ) of the Act, (let alone any defect in the notice). likewise, the non-striking

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

263 of the Act and since the provisions of Section 271 rws 274 of the Act specifically DO NOT contemplate the issue of notice, one can safely conclude that failure to issue a show cause notice does not invalidate the proceedings U/Section 271(l}(c ) of the Act, (let alone any defect in the notice). likewise, the non-striking

M/S. HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(HUDCO),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

263 of the Act and since the provisions of Section 271 rws 274 of the Act specifically DO NOT contemplate the issue of notice, one can safely conclude that failure to issue a show cause notice does not invalidate the proceedings U/Section 271(l}(c ) of the Act, (let alone any defect in the notice). likewise, the non-striking