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

The appeals are disposed of

gains. A bare reading of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act would show that, the very fact that, there is a reference to, in arriving at the cost of acquisition, to the written down value of the „block of assets at the beginning of the previous year as increased by actual cost of assets

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 :-

34,838) Donation (3,00,000) Sub Total 7,44,265 Total Expenses claimed 86,04,017.13 The AO disallowed the above expenses for the reason that the above expenditures are not allowed to be claimed under the head Capital Gains u/s 48 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the interest received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 being an accretion to the value, would 8 form part of the compensation and would be exigible to tax under section 45(5) of the I.T. Act, whereas the interest received under section 34

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)

34,887 equity shares in Vodafone Essar Ltd (‘VEL’)(Initially known as Hutchison Max Telecom Private Limited (‘HMTL’) subsequently known as Hutchison Essar Limited (‘HEL’) and now VEL), an Indian company, constituting 15.85% of the ordinary share capital of VEL. Pursuant to the approval obtained by ETIL on 11 December 2006 from Foreign Investment Promotion Board (‘FIPB’), the Assessee infused

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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

34. For a lease of an immovable property defined as such in Section 105 of the TP Act to be a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2 (14) (a) of the Act, the nature of the leasehold right granted to the lessee under the lease deed will have to be examined. For e.g., the Patna High Court

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

34. For a lease of an immovable property defined as such in Section 105 of the TP Act to be a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2 (14) (a) of the Act, the nature of the leasehold right granted to the lessee under the lease deed will have to be examined. For e.g., the Patna High Court

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 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

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

capital gain of Rs.3,34,65,931/- and the\nsaid gain was claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income

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 68 or not. In the case of NR Portfolio, it was held that the genuineness and credibility are deeper and obtrusive. Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., wherein

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

34,456 should not\nbe considered for additions.\n\nFor units acquired on or after 1 April 2017\n\n• 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

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

34,887 equity shares in Vodafone Essar Ltd (‘VEL’)(Initially\nknown as Hutchison Max Telecom Private Limited (‘HMTL’)\nsubsequently known as Hutchison Essar Limited (‘HEL’) and now VEL),\nan Indian company, constituting 15.85% of the ordinary share capital of\nVEL. Pursuant to the approval obtained by ETIL on 11 December 2006\nfrom Foreign Investment Promotion Board (‘FIPB’), the Assessee infused

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 32(3) of units of UTI for the purpose of holding that the unit is a share." 6.6 In view of the aforesaid reasoning and the judicial pronouncement cited supra, we are of the view that the CIT(A) is 37 Saket Kanoi justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,34,99,407 as short term capital gain

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

capital gain from sale of shares. 33. Be that as it may, it is a proved fact on record that assessee never became the legal owner of the shares as the shares were never transferred in assessee’s name. The assessee also accepts 26 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 the fact that he could not have instituted

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

34,841/- under section 14A of the Act, over and above suo-motu disallowance of Rs.2,09,65,159/- by the appellant. 4.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in proceeding to make disallowance under section 14A simply on the basis of method/ formula prescribed in Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, without appreciating that

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

34,841/- under section 14A of the Act, over and above suo-motu disallowance of Rs.2,09,65,159/- by the appellant. 4.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in proceeding to make disallowance under section 14A simply on the basis of method/ formula prescribed in Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, without appreciating that

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings also, the assessee filed written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his order. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned income shown

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

34 of Paper book). 1.3 That on 28.09.2021 the learned Assessing Officer passed draft order u/s 144C of the Act wherein assessed income is proposed at Rs. 33,60,600/-, proposing following additions: Sr.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. i) Short Term Capital Gain: Being capital gain on sale of 3,37,202/- office space in Project Digital Greens