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)

3) (Capital gain on ships and aircrafts), 13(3A) (Capital gain on shares acquired after 1 April 2017), 13(3B) (Capital gain on shares between 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2019), will be taxable only in the country in which alienator is a resident. Therefore, the amended Article 13(4) effectively provides that the capital gain arising on alienation

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

capital gain or loss has been enumerated from sections 48 to 55. Further sub-section (3) of section 70 and section

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

capital gain or loss has been enumerated from sections 48 to 55. Further sub-section (3) of section 70 and section

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

3. Paragraph 4 deals with the taxation of Capital gains arising from the alienation of any property other than those mentioned in the proceedings paragraphs and gives the right of taxation of capitals gains only to that State of which the person deriving the capital gains as a resident. In terms of paragraph 4, capital gains derived by residents

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 17 of the Act, as against long-term capital gains offered to tax by the appellant in the return of income. 2.1 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in drawing conclusion that there was employer-employee relationship between appellant and CIPL, which is contrary to the facts and documentation placed on record. 3

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

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, we proceed to dictate our decision. 3

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

capital gains not taxable in India.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "13(4)", "6(3)", "13(3A)", "13(36)", "250", "90(2)", "90(4)", "90(5)", "Article

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 :-

Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and only following expenses are eligible to be deducted from the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head capital gains: 1. Which are incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Capital assets and 2. The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)/ 144C(13) of the Act. 2. That the learned AO/ DRP has further erred both in law and on fact in making an addition of Rs. 3,37,202/- representing alleged short term capital gain

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(3) of the Act by the\nAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 53(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred\nto as \"the AO\") for assessment year 2016-17.\n2.\nBrief facts of case are that assessee having income from business and\nprofession, house property, capital gains

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

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') as per\nthe directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP') under\nsection 144C(13) of the Act on following grounds:\n\n1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nAO and the DRP erred in considering the capital gains

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3 of 32 (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in holding that the transaction is chargeable to capital gains under Section

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3 of 32 (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in holding that the transaction is chargeable to capital gains under Section

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

sections relate to the same subject matter of computation of capital gains on the sale of a capital asset, description of the previous owner and the period of holding of the asset by the assessee.” 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and thus, proceed to pronounce our decision on the aforesaid substantial question of law. 3

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

capital gains not under the head income from business and profession. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I.T.A. No.5656/Del/2019 2 the Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO under section 14A Rs.1,23,33,363/- ignoring the fact that the provisions under section 14A are mandatory provisions.” 3

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

capital gains) as genuine. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the action of ld AO in making addition of Rs 64,90,468/- without appreciating spirit of law contained in section 10(38) and section 43(5)(d) where statutory status is provided to evidences

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

sections": [ "143(3)", "2(14)", "45", "48", "55(2)", "28(via)", "10(38)", "24(b)" ], "issues": "Whether the property converted from stock-in-trade to a capital asset was correctly treated as a capital asset, and if related expenses (stamp duty, interest) are allowable for computing capital gains

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

capital gain of Rs. 1,17,34,753/- under section 10(38) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. He also added Rs. 2,11,226/- to the income of the assessee being commission @ 1.8% of trade value on account of providing accommodation 3