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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28,35,892/- would result in short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The assessee's contention is that the capital gain on transfer of said shares is long term capital gain as the transfer of 12,50,000 shares was out of 12.5 lac shares transferred to Joint Demat account from their individual demat accounts of both

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28,35,892/- would result in short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The assessee's contention is that the capital gain on transfer of said shares is long term capital gain as the transfer of 12,50,000 shares was out of 12.5 lac shares transferred to Joint Demat account from their individual demat accounts of both

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28,35,892/- would result in short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The assessee's contention is that the capital gain on transfer of said shares is long term capital gain as the transfer of 12,50,000 shares was out of 12.5 lac shares transferred to Joint Demat account from their individual demat accounts of both

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28,35,892/- would result in short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The assessee's contention is that the capital gain on transfer of said shares is long term capital gain as the transfer of 12,50,000 shares was out of 12.5 lac shares transferred to Joint Demat account from their individual demat accounts of both

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28,35,892/- would result in short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The assessee's contention is that the capital gain on transfer of said shares is long term capital gain as the transfer of 12,50,000 shares was out of 12.5 lac shares transferred to Joint Demat account from their individual demat accounts of both

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

28,35,892/- would result in short term capital gain or long term capital gain. The assessee's contention is that the capital gain on transfer of said shares is long term capital gain as the transfer of 12,50,000 shares was out of 12.5 lac shares transferred to Joint Demat account from their individual demat accounts of both

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

28,140 Total 1,21,87,78,509 17. Now, it has been well settled that if the shares which has been acquired and treated as investment from day one and held for more than a year, then sale of such shares has to be taxed under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’. This has been clarified by the CBDT

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

28,140 Total 1,21,87,78,509 17. Now, it has been well settled that if the shares which has been acquired and treated as investment from day one and held for more than a year, then sale of such shares has to be taxed under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’. This has been clarified by the CBDT

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

28,140 Total 1,21,87,78,509 17. Now, it has been well settled that if the shares which has been acquired and treated as investment from day one and held for more than a year, then sale of such shares has to be taxed under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’. This has been clarified by the CBDT

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

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain, depending upon the period of the holding. A finding of fact has been arrived at by the Tribunal as regards the existence of two distinct types of transactions namely, those by way of investment on one hand and those for the purposes of business on the other hand, Question (a) above, does not raise any substantial question

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

Section 28 forms a part of capital gains under Section 45 of the Act and is exempt as per Section

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. It is submitted that no power is vested in the AO to increase or decrease the actual consideration for transfer of capital asset subjected to capital gains

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 28(iv) of the Act as 'profits and gains of business and profession', alleging the same to be in lieu of professional/ entrepreneurial services. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding (in alternate) that compensation arising for alleged transfer of rights is taxable as short-term capital

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

28,662 could be determined and carried forward in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, when the provisions of section 12B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, itself were not applicable in the assessment year 1955-56." 9. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court took into consideration the aspect that

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

28,662 could be determined and carried forward in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, when the provisions of section 12B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, itself were not applicable in the assessment year 1955-56." 9. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court took into consideration the aspect that

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 28(Via) from A.Y. 2019-20. Prior to it was not taxable. Action of learned AO is bad in law and illegal. 4. That the learned AO has also erred in law and on facts in disallowing short term capital loss of Rs.1,45,74,040/- which was set off against long term Capital Gain