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

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

2(24) (vi) provides income includes – any capital gain chargeable under section 45 of the Income Tax Act which assessee has already declared in the return of income. Therefore, there is nothing wrong for the A.O. to accept that compensation received by assessee as capital receipt on account of which capital gain arises. Therefore, there is nothing wrong

ABHA BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, GURGAON

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

2(24) (vi) provides income includes – any capital gain chargeable under section 45 of the Income Tax Act which assessee has already declared in the return of income. Therefore, there is nothing wrong for the A.O. to accept that compensation received by assessee as capital receipt on account of which capital gain arises. Therefore, there is nothing wrong

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

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

2(24) (vi) provides income includes – any capital gain chargeable under section 45 of the Income Tax Act which assessee has already declared in the return of income. Therefore, there is nothing wrong for the A.O. to accept that compensation received by assessee as capital receipt on account of which capital gain arises. Therefore, there is nothing wrong

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

2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company filed original return of income declaring income of Rs.5,34,420/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, a notice under section 148 was issued

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

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

2,45,000 shares of ‘M/s Pearl Retail Solutions Pvt. Ltd’ (‘PRS’) for a consideration of Rs.74,15,54,375/- (a company incorporated in India) held as investment in the books of assessee company to ‘LEI Singapore Holdings Pte Ltd’ (an independent company incorporated in Singapore) and hence have reported Long term capital gain which is exempt from

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital expenditure which is allowable to an exempt institution only. 11. In the last point the assessee has argued that the order is not erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue because, the AO had taken one of the possible stands. When two views are possible, and the AO has taken one of the possible views

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)

2(i) That issue of long term capital gain was before AO and CIT(A) and as such CIT could not assume jurisdiction u/s 263 as same has merged with order of CIT(A). (ii) That in any case, issue of long term capital gain was considered in detail by AO and addition made by AO were deleted

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

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)

2. erred in treating the Appellant as tax resident of India under the provisions of section 6(3) of the Act: 3. erred in disregarding the settled law with respect to tax residency of a foreign company under the provisions of section 6(3) of the Act as established through various judicial precedents on this aspect as well as provisions

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

2(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

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

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

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 and in law, the Ld.\nAO and the DRP erred

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

2)/2Q13-14/453 dated ' 25.02.2014" (Emphasis added) 6.8 Further, in the said reasons, at various places reference was given of the February 2014. This goes to prove that the survey report was received by the AO in the month of February 2014 only. 6.9 In view of the above, the Appellant submits that since the survey report had been received

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

2. Manpasand Beverages Limited; Listed equity shares Long Term Capital Loss on transfer - INR229,185,105 These shares were also held for more than 12 months and will 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. The Company incurred a loss

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)

2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and 2.8.1 are allowed. 26. As regards to Ground Nos. 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 4 relating to addition of Rs. 7,31,67,674/- pertaining to computation of long-term capital gain on transfer of shares to a non-resident, the Ld. AR submitted 27 that

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains\namounting to Rs.19,59,57,813/- for taxation as per the above computation.\nI. From Latika Dutt: Purchase of land property on 03/10/2016 from Latika Dutt\nof 12 Bigha 14 Biswa bearing Khasra Nos. 298/1 (7-0) 298 MIN (2-09),\n1820/297 MIN EAST (2-11) and 1819/297 MIN WEST (0-14) in Asola Tehsil\nSaket, New Delhi