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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

1 in the return of income short-term capital gain to be RS. 1.27 2 assessed 3. The perusal of the return indicates that neither long-term capital gain nor short-term capital gain has been disclosed. I, therefore, have reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully

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

35,49,508 iv) Short-term capital gain u/s 111A 1,85,41,338 v) Short-term capital gain Others 29,95,242 Profit and gains of Business or profession Trading in mutual funds 3,60,77,965 Income from other sources Dividend income 8,19,14,172 5. The Assessing Officer to understand the different nature of transaction undertaken

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

35,49,508 iv) Short-term capital gain u/s 111A 1,85,41,338 v) Short-term capital gain Others 29,95,242 Profit and gains of Business or profession Trading in mutual funds 3,60,77,965 Income from other sources Dividend income 8,19,14,172 5. The Assessing Officer to understand the different nature of transaction undertaken

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

35,49,508 iv) Short-term capital gain u/s 111A 1,85,41,338 v) Short-term capital gain Others 29,95,242 Profit and gains of Business or profession Trading in mutual funds 3,60,77,965 Income from other sources Dividend income 8,19,14,172 5. The Assessing Officer to understand the different nature of transaction undertaken

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

capital gains arising out of the sale of the premises should not be taxed in the AY 1991-92. On this basis notice was issued on 4th December 1996 under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 1991-92. 32.4 The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the reopening

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

capital gains arising out of the sale of the premises should not be taxed in the AY 1991-92. On this basis notice was issued on 4th December 1996 under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 1991-92. 32.4 The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the reopening

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

capital gains arising out of the sale of the premises should not be taxed in the AY 1991-92. On this basis notice was issued on 4th December 1996 under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 1991-92. 32.4 The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the reopening

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

1. Between common parties, identical issues arise for determination in these two appeals; albeit for two assessment years, viz., Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. ITA 1069 OF 2007 relates to Assessment Year 1999-2000 and since it is prior in point ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 2 of 22 of time, we have taken note

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

1. Between common parties, identical issues arise for determination in these two appeals; albeit for two assessment years, viz., Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. ITA 1069 OF 2007 2010:DHC:6300-DB of time, we have taken note of the facts of this appeal to understand the issues involved and to answer the same. 2. For this year

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

capital gains would have been declared by the APIL but in view of APIL’s reply, the assessing officer concluded that possession of the land was not given to the assessee. He further noted that the amount of Rs.8,60,16,000/- continued to remain with APIL for the whole of the next financial year i.e. 2004-05 without

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Services [2000] 5 SCC 515; and Padman Sundra Rao vs State of Tamil Page 12 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC), for the proposition that it is one of the fundamental principles of interpretation of statute that omissions in statute as a general Rule cannot be supplied by construction. It was submitted that

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Services [2000] 5 SCC 515; and Padman Sundra Rao vs State of Tamil Page 12 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC), for the proposition that it is one of the fundamental principles of interpretation of statute that omissions in statute as a general Rule cannot be supplied by construction. It was submitted that

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