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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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 2 (42A) of the act. Therefore, AO treated shares of Scorpio beverages P Ltd as short-term capital asset and computed the short-term capital gain accordingly. Assessee submitted before the assessing officer that she has borrowed loan for making investment in the shares of Scorpio beverages private limited. Interest of INR 37317628/– has been incurred as expenses during

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

capital gains was ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 3 of 23 shown as Rs.1,32,32,609/- chargeable under Section 50 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that Section 50 of the Act is not applicable as the entire division, i.e., plant and machinery belonging to the paper division had been sold. He came to the conclusion that Section

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

The appeals are disposed of

32,609/- chargeable under Section 50 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that Section 50 of the Act is not applicable as the entire division, i.e., plant and machinery belonging to the paper division had been sold. He came to the conclusion that Section 50 including sub-section (2) of the Act was not applicable. Accordingly, the gain

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

32,609/- chargeable under Section 50 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that Section 50 of the Act is not applicable as the entire division, i.e., plant and machinery belonging to the paper division had been sold. He came to the conclusion that Section 50 including sub-section (2) of the Act was not applicable. Accordingly, the gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

32,609/- chargeable under Section 50 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that Section 50 of the Act is not applicable as the entire division, i.e., plant and machinery belonging to the paper division had been sold. He came to the conclusion that Section 50 including sub-section (2) of the Act was not applicable. Accordingly, the gain

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

32 of 118 7.5 The circulars of Union of India dated 20th October, 2016, 16th November, 2016 and 5th January, 2017 provided a specific window for applicants whose Section 2(ii) approvals were pending, to obtain approval under Section 2(iii) of FC Act, 1980 for grant and execution of mining lease. Having notified such specific window, the UOI cannot

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

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

CIT vs. M/S 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