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

30-3-1994” 37. It is clear from the aforesaid that capital gains derived by a resident of Mauritius by alienation of shares of companies shall be taxable in Mauritius only and will not have any capital gains tax liability in India. 38. Further, reliance was placed upon another Circular No.789 dated 13th April 2000 issued by the CBDT which

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)

30,580/- on 31.07.2014. The return was processed under Section 143(1). The case was picked up for scrutiny through CASS. Notice under Section 143(2) was duly served upon the assessee by the assessee on 28.08.2015. After the change of jurisdiction the case was transferred to DCIT, Circle-2, Gurgaon. Notice under Section 142(1) along with questionnaire

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

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)

30. The aforesaid position has been clarified by the CBDT vide press release dated 29 August 2016 wherein it has been provided that the amendment made to India-Mauritius DTAA which provides for capital gains arising on transfer of shares on or after 1 April 2017 will be restricted to the shares purchased on or after 1 April

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

section 14A are mandatory provisions.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee in the Revenue’s Appeal submitted at the outset that identical issue came up in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein the benefit of Long Term Gains arising

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains were attracted under Section 50 of the Act. Order of the CIT (A) 9. The appeal filed by the Assessee was dismissed by the CIT (A) by an order dated 23rd February 1999. The CIT (A) affirmed the factual findings of the AO and concluded that the fact of the use of the Bhiwadi premises by other parties

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains were attracted under Section 50 of the Act. Order of the CIT (A) 9. The appeal filed by the Assessee was dismissed by the CIT (A) by an order dated 23rd February 1999. The CIT (A) affirmed the factual findings of the AO and concluded that the fact of the use of the Bhiwadi premises by other parties

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)

Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that initial onus is on person who substantially asserts a claim. If the onus is discharged by him and a case is made out, the onus shifts on to deponent. It is pertinent to mention here that the phrase "burden of proof is used in two distinct meanings

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 entries under

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 of a company and includes stock. It\nrepresents the interest of a shareholder in the company, measured for the\npurposes of liability and dividend. It attaches various rights and liabilities\ndirectly connected to the ownership and principles like concept of lifting of\ncorporate veil can be invoked to see if there is any actual distinction between\nthe holder

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

30,40,600/- was brought to tax as short term capital gains computed under Section 50(2) of the Act. The Assessing

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

Section 45 is that the\nproperty transferred must be a capital asset on the date of\ntransfer and that it is not necessary that it should have been\ncapital asset also on the date of its acquisition by the\nassessee. Thus this decision directly answers the question\nraised and concluded. This has been followed in a subsequent\ndecision reported

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Capital gains account on which\ntax is paid during A.Y. (18-19) claimed by the assessee on purchase of land\ndoesn't fall within the ambit of Sec 54B of income tax act, 1961. The same is\nbrought to tax accordingly under section 45 of the Income tax Act, 1961.\nAggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the learned

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

capital gains taxation by the AO\n6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of\nthe existing arrangement\nPara 11 (page 24-27) ECL\nPara 11 (page 23-25) ECOM\n6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom\nBusiness from Onshore to offshore\nPara 12 (page 27-33) ECL\nPara 12 (page 26-31) ECOM\n6.3 Acquisition

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

30. However, the crucial issue is, what is the capital asset held by the assessee. Whether the capital asset held by the assessee and subsequently transferred is any share/security of an Indian company or some other asset. Though, in the return of income filed as well as in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed that he has derived

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

30. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra), we allow ground nos.8 to 8.2. 31. With regard to Ground Nos.9 to 9.4 regarding income from trading in mutual funds/shares treated as business income and not as long term/short term capital gain, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “The appellant, as a consistent practice, has been investing

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

30. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra), we allow ground nos.8 to 8.2. 31. With regard to Ground Nos.9 to 9.4 regarding income from trading in mutual funds/shares treated as business income and not as long term/short term capital gain, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under :- “The appellant, as a consistent practice, has been investing

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

gain. The assessee had acquired a right to get a particular flat from the builder and that right of the assessee itself is a capital asset. The word 'held' used in Section 2 (14) as well as Explanation to Section 48 clearly depicts that assessee must have some right in the capital asset which is subject to transfer. By making