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

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

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

1) to Section 263 of the Act which deems the assessment order erroneous insofar as is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of such enquiry/verification. 8. At the time of hearing now before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this property was sold on 25th March, 2019 and capital gain

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 90(1) of IT Act which is reproduced below: "90(1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India,- (a) for the granting of relief in respect of- (i) income on which have been paid both income-tax under this Act and income-tax in that

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

1 (2)(2), Delhi ('Ld.\nAO') under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') as per\nthe directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP') under\nsection 144C(13) of the Act on following grounds:\n\n1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

J. M. HOUSING LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

263 and section 115BBE. Section 41(1) “41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee (hereinafter referred to as the first-mentioned person) and subsequently during any previous year,— (a) the first-mentioned person has obtained, whether in cash

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

263 of the Act was passed. 49. There is an additional reason why the assessee‘s contentions must fail. In the present case, the claim of the assessee is that they had disclosed the international transaction in their report under Section 92E which included AMP expenses incurred by them. This aspect relates to merits, i.e. whether or not there

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TECHNIP FRANCE SAS, GURGAON

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 90(2) of the Act, provisions of the Act are over ridden by the provisions of DTAA to the extent more beneficial to the non-resident assessee. Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the Indo-UK DTAA provides that profits attributable to PE in India shall be only profits arising from activities carried

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 that the issue as to whether holding of asset for 36 months or for less than 36 months is not debatable issue and the same is not error apparent on record, thus, invocation of Section 154 of the Page

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to 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

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

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

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee through ITBA under DIN & Notice No. ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2020- 21/1031641759(1)/2287dated 22.03.2021 requiring him to explain as to why the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act should not be considered as erroneous