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)

capital gains on the shares which were acquired in 2008 and sold in 2011, which is much before 1 April 2017, is unsustainable and bad in law. V. The Assessee is not a resident of India as its control & management is not situated wholly in India: a. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined every year 32

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

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 of the aforesaid submissions and case laws, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is a resident of Mauritius and entitled to the benefit given under India-Mauritius

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

The appeals are disposed of

1) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the assets. (2) Written down value of the block assets at the beginning of the previous year. (3) Actual cost of the assets falling within the block of assets acquired during the previous year. 16. Thus, under Section 50 short term capital gains is payable in case after

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

32 the transaction. Under Section 45(1) 'capital gains' are any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year. When the word „transfer‟ itself has been defined under Section 2(47) (vi) and by virtue of Explanation 1 "shall" have the same meaning as Section 269UA(d) then it is not possible

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

32 the transaction. Under Section 45(1) 'capital gains' are any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year. When the word „transfer‟ itself has been defined under Section 2(47) (vi) and by virtue of Explanation 1 "shall" have the same meaning as Section 269UA(d) then it is not possible

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

ii) during that year, the control and management of its affairs is\nsituated wholly in India.\nDue to the requirement that whole of control and management\nshould be situated in India and that too for whole of the year, the\ncondition has been rendered to be practically inapplicable. A\ncompany can easily avoid becoming a resident by simply holding

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 :-

32. Facts in the present assessment year being similar, the ground No. 8 raised by the assessee in its appeal is allowed accordingly." The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in case of Nadir A. Modi vs JCIT, Tax 11(3), Mumbai [2017] 88 taxmann.com 868 (Mumbai - Trlb.), wherein held as below: 7 Para 7. However it is also argued that there

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

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

ii) no depreciation is allowable in respect of land as it is not specifically mentioned as an asset eligible for depreciation either in Section 2(11) or in Section 32(1) and (iii) the provisions of Section 50 are applicable only when the asset transferred forms part of a block of assets and in addition it was also allowed depreciation

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

32[Omitted by the Finance Act, 1992, w.e.f. 1-4-1993.]\n9. 1. The above section does not mandate that for claiming deduction\nu/s 54 of the Act filing of the claim in the return is a mandatory\ncondition. Further, without going into the controversy as to whether the\nabove transaction regarding Long Term Capital Gain in respect of\nLucknow

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

ii. Shri Mukesh Mittal vs. ITO (ITA No. 761/Del/2020) dated 26.03.2021 iii. Shri Tapas Kumar Mallick vs. ACIT (ITA No. 8142/Del/2018) dated 19.03.2021 iv. Amit Jindal vs. ITO (ITA No. 1547/Del/2019) dated 24.02.2022 23. Before we proceed further, let us notice the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padmasundara Rao (Decd.) vs. State of Tamil Nadu

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

32,39,427 (Except Dabur India Ltd.) Long Term Capital Gain Rs.10,13,29,232 (without indexation) Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 2,93,99,990 (with indexation after removing Indexation) Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 1,85,41,338 Short Term Capital Gain With PMS (Net) Rs. 16,86,882 Total Rs. 15,41,96,869/- The assessee company

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

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- II, Kochi is contrary to the law and facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II Kochi erred in holding that the units of equity oriented Mutual Funds and equity shares cannot be held to be the same. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income

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

32 of the Act, consistent with his finding that the aforesaid expenditure is capital in nature. 9. That the assessing officer /DRP erred on facts and in law in treating gains from sale and purchase of mutual funds as "business income” as against the same being declared under the head capital gains" by the appellant. 9.1 That the assessing officer

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

32 of the Act, consistent with his finding that the aforesaid expenditure is capital in nature. 9. That the assessing officer /DRP erred on facts and in law in treating gains from sale and purchase of mutual funds as "business income” as against the same being declared under the head capital gains" by the appellant. 9.1 That the assessing officer

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

ii) Whether the capital gain is taxable in India. (iii) Whether the deduction on account of cost of acquisition in relation to transfer of capital asset is allowable or not. 5. For deciding these issues we need to discuss the relevant facts. Briefly stated, the assessee is a Non Resident Indian(NRI) individual and a resident of United States

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

ii) In this regard, it is imperative to first examine the provisions of\nArticle 13 of the India-Mauritius DTAA which reads as under:\n\nARTICLE 13\nCAPITAL GAINS\n\n1. Gains from the alienation of immovable property, as defined in\nparagraph (2) of article 6, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which\nsuch property is situated

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- Salaries.” 22. Further, Section 56 of the Income Tax Act reads as under: “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income- tax under