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. 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

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

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

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

35. Learned authorised representative reiterated the original submission made by him with respect to the availability of deduction u/s 54EC of the act and for the purpose of deduction Under Section 54 of the income tax act, he relied on the decision of the honourable madras High Court. Queries by the Bench 36. Coordinate bench then raised the query

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

35. Learned authorised representative reiterated the original submission made by him with respect to the availability of deduction u/s 54EC of the act and for the purpose of deduction Under Section 54 of the income tax act, he relied on the decision of the honourable madras High Court. Queries by the Bench 36. Coordinate bench then raised the query

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

35. Learned authorised representative reiterated the original submission made by him with respect to the availability of deduction u/s 54EC of the act and for the purpose of deduction Under Section 54 of the income tax act, he relied on the decision of the honourable madras High Court. Queries by the Bench 36. Coordinate bench then raised the query

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

35 of its order has given as many as 17 reasons, which will be taken note of at an appropriate stage. While remanding the case back to the AO, directions to undertake the exercise afresh on the lines suggested by the Tribunal are stated as under: “63. In view of the above, we accept the contentions raised on behalf

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

35 of its order has given as many as 17 reasons, which will be taken note of at an appropriate stage. While remanding the case back to the AO, directions to undertake the exercise afresh on the lines suggested by the Tribunal are stated as under: “63. In view of the above, we accept the contentions raised on behalf

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

iv) CBDT issued Circular No, 682 dated March 30, 1994 (Pg 282 of PB - I). v) CBDT issued Circular No. 789 dated April 13, 2000 (Pg 283 of PB - I). vi) The Finance Ministry issued a clarification press release dated 01-03-2013” (Pg 284 of PB -1). 5.2 Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on following case laws, wherein

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)

IV. The capital gain arising on the securities purchased before 1 April 2017 has been grandfathered and cannot be brought to tax in India 27. The Assessee submits that with effect from 1 April 2017 amendments have been made to Article 13 of the India-Mauritius DTAA whereby Article 13(3A) has been inserted which provides that capital gain arising

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)

IV of the Act - taxation of capital gains) is the charging section and for the period under consideration the said provisions did not provide any mandate to the AO to replace/substitute the actual sale consideration with any alleged fair market value. 13. That the CIT(A) grossly erred in law in not appreciating that the provisions of subsection

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

35(1)(vi) and the value at which the assets were taken over by the assessee is as under: Particulars WDV as on 31.3.2004 Value at which (under IT Act without taken over by taking into consideration assessee 100% dep. As (R&D) Building 36,68,570 66,00,000 Leasehold improvements 7,098 ------- Plant and Machinery 1