RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital of that concern, the exemption under section\n11 or section 12 shall not be denied in relation to any income other than the income\narising to the trust or the institution from such investment, by reason only that the\nfunds of the trust or the institution have been invested in a concern in which such\nperson has a substantial

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

capital gains would have been declared by the APIL but in view of APIL’s reply, the assessing officer concluded that possession of the land was not given to the assessee. He further noted that the amount of Rs.8,60,16,000/- continued to remain with APIL for the whole of the next financial year i.e. 2004-05 without

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

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

c) MIH India (Mauritius) Ltd. vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 1023/Del/2022 (kindly see pages 9 to 30 of PB - II, Relevant Page 22 of PB - II Para 11). (d) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Another (263 ITR 706), (e) Vodafone International holdings B.V Vs Union of India & Anr 341 ITR 1 [2012]” 5.3 In view

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)

27. The Assessee submits that with effect from 1 April 2017 amendments have been made to Article 13 of the India-Mauritius DTAA whereby Article 13(3A) has been inserted which provides that capital gain arising on transfer of shares, acquired on or after 1 April 2017, will be taxable in the country in which the company whose shares

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

1,04,27,637/- in Asst Year 2012-13 on sale of equity shares and equity oriented mutual funds which were subject to levy of STT in the original return of income filed. The aforesaid loss was claimed to be carried forward to subsequent years in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The assessee filed a revised return wherein

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

1,04,27,637/- in Asst Year 2012-13 on sale of equity shares and equity oriented mutual funds which were subject to levy of STT in the original return of income filed. The aforesaid loss was claimed to be carried forward to subsequent years in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The assessee filed a revised return wherein

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

The appeals are disposed of

c) In the case of any block of assets, - (i) In respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, the aggregate of the written down values of all the assets falling within that block of assets at the beginning of the previous year and adjusted, - (A) by the increase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been initiated separately.” 13 15. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CIT (A), assessee has submitted as under :- “1. Principles laid down in the circular No. 04/2007 dt. 15th June, 2007 are satisfied to treat the income as Short term Capital

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

C) 2562/2022 &\nCM APPL. 7332/2022 and the Bombay High Court in the case of Bid\nServices Division (Mauritius) Ltd. (WP No. 713 of 2021) has reiterated\nthat the tax authorities cannot go behind the TRC issued by the other tax\njurisdiction as the same is sufficient evidence to claim treaty eligibility,\nresidential status and legal ownership. Therefore, the benefits

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

27,000/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Her case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for the reason “suspicious sale transaction in shares and exempt long term capital gain shown in return (Penny stock tab in ITS)”. Statutory notices were issued and served. In response, details as called for were furnished. The Ld. Assessing

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1 to Section 2 (47) in order to arrive at the conclusion there was indeed a 'transfer' of a capital asset brought about by the lease agreement in question. 44. The AO, the CIT (A) and the ITAT have relied on the decisions in Traders and Miners Ltd. (supra), A.R. Krishnamurthy (supra) and CIT v. Narang Diary Products

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1 to Section 2 (47) in order to arrive at the conclusion there was indeed a 'transfer' of a capital asset brought about by the lease agreement in question. 44. The AO, the CIT (A) and the ITAT have relied on the decisions in Traders and Miners Ltd. (supra), A.R. Krishnamurthy (supra) and CIT v. Narang Diary Products

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)

1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,36,25,157/- made on account of Long Term Capital Gain. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the assessee has not determined the capital gain per the Income Tax Act considering the handing over the possession of the property to the buyer

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)

1) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.8,36,25,157/- made on account of Long Term Capital Gain. 2) The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the assessee has not determined the capital gain per the Income Tax Act considering the handing over the possession of the property to the buyer

ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

capital gain. Since there is no dispute as to the similarity of facts, in the absence of any reasons compelling us to take a different view, while following the same, we hold the issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Similar is the issue involved in ground No. 1 in ITA No. 1906/Del/2017 in respect of the assessment year