CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

269 UA (f) (i). He submitted that inasmuch as the lease was for a period of less than twelve years, there was no 'transfer' of a capital asset as defined under Section 2 (14) of the Act. Mr. Vohra pointed out that Section 50B was a special provision for computation of capital gains

MDLR BUILDERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

section 45 (4) do not apply to partner and applies to a firm. He submitted that Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.43,49,47,500/- represent the capital gain arising on sum received by the assessee as partner on retirement from the partnership firm, though the same is exempt

MDLR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

section 45 (4) do not apply to partner and applies to a firm. He submitted that Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.43,49,47,500/- represent the capital gain arising on sum received by the assessee as partner on retirement from the partnership firm, though the same is exempt

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

gain. 20. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC): In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court reproduced the relevant part of the order of CIT (Appeals) wherein he observed that in the assessment order the AO referred to the general modus operandi of bogus accommodation entry and thereafter, he has further referred to statement of parties

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

RAMESH CHANDER BHASIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 53(5), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of the new asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1), Exceeds 29 ITA.No.161/Del./2020 Smt. Savita Bhasin L.R. of (wife) Shri Ramesh Chander Bhasin, New Delhi

RAMOTAR SINGH HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 2, REWARI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

capital gain on sale of land in question along with supporting documents. Referring to page 3 of the paper book, he submitted that the assessee, vide letter dated 20th May, 2013, responded that the assessee has not filed any income-tax return for the impugned assessment year. Referring to page 5 of the paper book, the ld. Counsel drew

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. GULAB SUNDRI BAPNA

Appeal is disposed of

Section 45(5) stipulates how capital gains has to be charged and is not the computation provision. Reliance is placed on decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Leader Engg. Works,[2004] 269

Commissioner of Income Tax - VIII, New Delhi vs. Gulab Sundri Bapna

Appeal is disposed of

Section 45(5) stipulates how capital gains has to be charged and is not the computation provision. Reliance is placed on decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Leader Engg. Works,[2004] 269

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

Appeal is disposed of

Section 45(5) stipulates how capital gains has to be charged and is not the computation provision. Reliance is placed on decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Leader Engg. Works,[2004] 269

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

269,316/- equivalent to Rs. 346,24,78,123/- ii) The dues so received treated as receipt in foreign exchange for the purpose of Section 80HHB and claim allowed by Revenue iii) Bridge loans given for fulfillment of contracts by Govt. of India to assessee company yet to be repaid. The CIT(A) concluded that this facility given for more

SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

section 54 are satisfied and therefore, assessee was entitled to benefit u/s 54 of the Act. All these documents were before the Assessing Officer. He enhanced the capital gain but did not consider the .benefit available to the assessee u/s 54 of the Act. It is a well established principle of law that where an assessee is entitled

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

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

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

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

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

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

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

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

capital gains arising from transfer of shares in Jyoti Pvt. Ltd. Specifically, the dispute is regarding 'Cost of acquisition' of the shares held by the assessee prior to 1.4.1981 in Jyoti (Pvt.) Ltd. He submitted that this is because all the assessees have exercised option under section 55(2)(i) of the I. T. Act that the market value

MIH INDIA (MAURITIUS) LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

section 143C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, in pursuance to AY: 2017-18 the directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)-2, New Delhi. 2. The basic grievance arising in the appeal relates to taxability of short term capital gain of Rs.4,77,44,375/- arising on sale