DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

27 crores chargeable to tax have escaped assessment. Therefore, clearly on the foundation of the information, the learned assessing officer independently verified return of income and noted that assessee has not disclosed short-term capital gain of RS. 12,700,000/– and then formed a belief to necessitate the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the income tax act. Therefore

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

27 crores chargeable to tax have escaped assessment. Therefore, clearly on the foundation of the information, the learned assessing officer independently verified return of income and noted that assessee has not disclosed short-term capital gain of RS. 12,700,000/– and then formed a belief to necessitate the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the income tax act. Therefore

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

27 crores chargeable to tax have escaped assessment. Therefore, clearly on the foundation of the information, the learned assessing officer independently verified return of income and noted that assessee has not disclosed short-term capital gain of RS. 12,700,000/– and then formed a belief to necessitate the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the income tax act. Therefore

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

27 crores chargeable to tax have escaped assessment. Therefore, clearly on the foundation of the information, the learned assessing officer independently verified return of income and noted that assessee has not disclosed short-term capital gain of RS. 12,700,000/– and then formed a belief to necessitate the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the income tax act. Therefore

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

27 crores chargeable to tax have escaped assessment. Therefore, clearly on the foundation of the information, the learned assessing officer independently verified return of income and noted that assessee has not disclosed short-term capital gain of RS. 12,700,000/– and then formed a belief to necessitate the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the income tax act. Therefore

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

27 crores chargeable to tax have escaped assessment. Therefore, clearly on the foundation of the information, the learned assessing officer independently verified return of income and noted that assessee has not disclosed short-term capital gain of RS. 12,700,000/– and then formed a belief to necessitate the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the income tax act. Therefore

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

27 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 the entire issue of Long-Term Capital Gain, whether assessable under the head ‘capital gain or business income’ is in dispute and if certain facts are being pointed out from the material already on record, then the same can always be examined to see, whether it was acquired for the purpose of investment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

27 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 the entire issue of Long-Term Capital Gain, whether assessable under the head ‘capital gain or business income’ is in dispute and if certain facts are being pointed out from the material already on record, then the same can always be examined to see, whether it was acquired for the purpose of investment

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

27 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 the entire issue of Long-Term Capital Gain, whether assessable under the head ‘capital gain or business income’ is in dispute and if certain facts are being pointed out from the material already on record, then the same can always be examined to see, whether it was acquired for the purpose of investment

NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 56 is not applicable to items covered in part A to E in chapter 4 of the Act and as such excludes income in the nature of „capital gains‟ covered in part E of Chapter 4. Mrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs The Additional CIT , New Delhi 19. That, without prejudice, the CIT(A) also failed to appreciate/failed to consider

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

27) observed in the following manner: "In this case it is important to bear in mind that set-off is being claimed under Section 70 of the 1961 Act which permits set off of any income falling under any head of income other than the capital gain

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

27) observed in the following manner: "In this case it is important to bear in mind that set-off is being claimed under Section 70 of the 1961 Act which permits set off of any income falling under any head of income other than the capital gain

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(2) of the Act as well as Article 13(4) of the Mauritius DTAA to emphasize that the gains arising from the transaction of sale of shares effected pursuant to the Share Purchase Agreement dated 1st March 2011 held by the Petitioner in MIAL would not be liable to tax in India. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

sections indicate beyond any doubt that the capital gains are separately computed in accordance with the said provisions and they are not treated as the profits from the business. The profits and gains of business and capital gains are two distinct concepts in the Income Tax Act: the former arises from the activity which is called business

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

sections indicate beyond any doubt that the capital gains are separately computed in accordance with the said provisions and they are not treated as the profits from the business. The profits and gains of business and capital gains are two distinct concepts in the Income Tax Act: the former arises from the activity which is called business

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

sections indicate beyond any doubt that the capital gains are separately computed in accordance with the said provisions and they are not treated as the profits from the business. The profits and gains of business and capital gains are two distinct concepts in the Income Tax Act: the former arises from the activity which is called business

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

sections indicate beyond any doubt that the capital gains are separately computed in accordance with the said provisions and they are not treated as the profits from the business. The profits and gains of business and capital gains are two distinct concepts in the Income Tax Act: the former arises from the activity which is called business

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

capital gains only. (xi) It is the prerogative of the parties to the agreement to decide upon their terms and considerations and unless there is any stipulation to the contrary the will and intention of the parties shall only prevail. There is no bar in the law on fixing different phases for the different years. (xii) It is trite