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

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 also\nexempts capital gains arising from a unit of an equity-oriented fund. This\ntreatment of capital gain to both equity shares and units of equity oriented\nfunds logically establish that units of equity funds are analogous/have\nsemblance with the equity shares.\n\n• Thus, the intent of Income Tax Law is very clear to treat the units

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

35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-, being the expenditure on account of foreseen price increase (in short "FPI). disregarding the consistent and accepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last

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

35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-, being the expenditure on account of foreseen price increase (in short "FPI). disregarding the consistent and accepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last

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 143 (1) of the 2 Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 28.12.2004. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, ld. AR for the assessee attended from time to time and submitted relevant information as called

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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets. If it was the case of the Revenue that there was in fact any such slump sale the treatment itself would be very different and the question of any disallowance as a revenue expenditure would not even arise. He pointed out that the Revenue was unclear whether the transaction

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets. If it was the case of the Revenue that there was in fact any such slump sale the treatment itself would be very different and the question of any disallowance as a revenue expenditure would not even arise. He pointed out that the Revenue was unclear whether the transaction

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

1) of section 54EC of the Act provide that where capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset and the assessee has, within a period of six months, invested the whole or part of capital gains in the long- term specified asset, the proportionate capital gains so invested in the long-term specified asset

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

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that long term capital gain/loss of Rs.3,48,35,294/- should be assessed under the head 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

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 90(1) of IT Act which is reproduced below: "90(1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India,- (a) for the granting of relief in respect of- (i) income on which have been paid both income-tax under this Act and income-tax in that

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains of Rs.41,71,72,652/-, which again in my\nhumble opinion, cannot be allowed merely by a symbolic or token activity of\nusing the said land for agriculture purposes by the assessee as discussed above.\n7.5.\nFurther, the assessee in support of his claim that the land was being\nused for agricultural purposes, the assessee has submitted

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

35(1)(iv) of\nthe Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant.\n6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in\nmaking disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-. being the expenditure on account\nof foreseen price increase (in short \"FPI), disregarding the consistent and\naccepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last

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

SAIF PARTNERS INDIA IV LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION-3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

capital gain taxation as provided in the Act. Please find enclosed the notes to computation (also furnished earlier) as Annexure 3 for detailed description in relation to transactions undertaken during the year under consideration. Further, the Company is a non-resident as per the provisions of the Act and does not create a permanent establishment in India for the relevant

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

35 statutory time period which is a pre-requisites for claiming the deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. The relevant findings of the AO in penalty order reads as under:- “From the above it is clear that the section clearly states that the assesse invests the net sale consideration of the capital asset to construct a residential house within

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

35,546 × 32.5% × 1024/389 - 1,14,252 • Proportionate indexed cost of construction during FY 2008-2010 77,50,652 × (374.86/940.61) × 1024/711 = 44,48,649 Total Indexed Cost of Acquisition = 69,43,452 Resulting Correct Long-Term Capital Gain = 6,47,06,548 (against the assessed figure of 7,01,46,841 or the incorrect revised figure

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)

1), ITA No. 6717/DEL/2017 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] held "5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order. 23 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO I find that the assessee is an individual and the amount of cash credit Rs. 27,68,457/. However, on perusing the assessment order, I find that there was a specific