ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains of business or profession‖. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the computation would have to be made in accordance with Chapter IV D. The Tribunal stated that if the starting point of the computation of the total income was only the revenue relatable to India, then, only the proportionate expenses relating to India should have been deducted rather than deducting

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

Capital gains derived on redemption of mutual fund units acquired\non or after 1 April 2017 is INR 282,67,71,265\n\n• As per section

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1), New Delhi\n3.5. Thereafter, the AO prepared a tabular chart under the title 'Testing the\nconditions of section 54B', which is reproduced as under:-\nCondition\nTesting the conditions of Sec 54B\nWhether\nfulfilled\nRemarks\n1\ncapital gain arises from\nthe transfer of a capital Yes\nasset being land\nSale of Agricultural land of area 37 Bighas 15 Biswas

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 90(1) of IT Act which is reproduced below: "90(1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India,- (a) for the granting of relief in respect of- (i) income on which have been paid both income-tax under this Act and income-tax in that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

282/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed. The penalty was imposed with respect to the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Depreciation Rs.2268,05,00,000/- disallowed (ii) Disallowance of 1,00,000/- assets written off (iii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on the following items of income:- Rs.13,15,00,00/- 1. Interest from others Rs.147

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

282/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed. The penalty was imposed with respect to the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Depreciation Rs.2268,05,00,000/- disallowed (ii) Disallowance of 1,00,000/- assets written off (iii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on the following items of income:- Rs.13,15,00,00/- 1. Interest from others Rs.147

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

282/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed. The penalty was imposed with respect to the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Depreciation Rs.2268,05,00,000/- disallowed (ii) Disallowance of 1,00,000/- assets written off (iii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on the following items of income:- Rs.13,15,00,00/- 1. Interest from others Rs.147

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

282/- u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was imposed. The penalty was imposed with respect to the following additions/disallowances:- (i) Depreciation Rs.2268,05,00,000/- disallowed (ii) Disallowance of 1,00,000/- assets written off (iii) Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA on the following items of income:- Rs.13,15,00,00/- 1. Interest from others Rs.147

(Now known as Sony India Limited)

282 (SC) is not applicable as it examines the power of the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act. The said power it was held, in the context of Section 80HHC of the Act, was not rightly exercised at the time when it was exercised, because the order passed by the Assessing Officer on the said aspect was not erroneous

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 (SC)." 6.9 After analyzing the issue and considering the judgments of various courts, and also on the basis of evidence filed by the appellant I find the intention of the appellant is to hold the investment for a certain period and to reap the profits at an appropriate time. It is also seen that the Assessing Officer

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 (SC)." 6.9 After analyzing the issue and considering the judgments of various courts, and also on the basis of evidence filed by the appellant I find the intention of the appellant is to hold the investment for a certain period and to reap the profits at an appropriate time. It is also seen that the Assessing Officer

M/S. ASHWANI KUMAR & SONS (HUF),MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwani Kumar & Sons (Huf) Ito, C/0. Vinod Kumar Goel, Vs. Ward-1(1), 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut Meerut Pan:Aahha7564A (Appellant) (Respondent)

282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut Meerut PAN:AAHHA7564A (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of hearing 18/12/2015 Date of pronouncement 15/03/2016 Assessee by: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Self Revenue by: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. DR O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 SCC 770 at para 4) e) J. M. Biswas vs. N. K. Bhattacharjee & Ors. (2002) (4) SCC 68. 48. Even, the Act itself provides for rectification when there occur changes in the quantum of capital gains in sub- sections 7B, 10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 SCC 770 at para 4) e) J. M. Biswas vs. N. K. Bhattacharjee & Ors. (2002) (4) SCC 68. 48. Even, the Act itself provides for rectification when there occur changes in the quantum of capital gains in sub- sections 7B, 10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 SCC 770 at para 4) e) J. M. Biswas vs. N. K. Bhattacharjee & Ors. (2002) (4) SCC 68. 48. Even, the Act itself provides for rectification when there occur changes in the quantum of capital gains in sub- sections 7B, 10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains arising out of sale of different\nshares as fair and transparent by submitting records of purchase bills, sale\nbills, demat statement etc., same not being earned from bogus companies\nwas eligible for exemption under section 10(38).\nPr. CIT 1 v. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (2021) 282

HARISH KUMAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

282 (All.) (v) Add/. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) (VI) CIT v. EdwertKeventer (Successors) P. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Delhi) (vii) Ultra tech Cement Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Range-2(2) (2017) 298 CTR 437 (Bom.) (viii) Self Knitting Works v. CIT (2014) 227 taxman 253 (P & H) The Id. D.R relying

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

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

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

282 (SC) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs., CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). He has submitted that since compensation received by assessee is for non-delivery of the Villas and, therefore, determination of capital gain on cancellation of BBA for allotment of Villas by the A.O. based on the claim of assessee is in accordance with Law. Therefore, proceedings