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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2

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)

2] sale consideration received or accrued or arise for the purpose of computation of capital gain and [3] cost of acquisition of those shares including interest capitalization. He submitted that the learned CIT – A failed to follow the same and cherry picked the conclusions of the coordinate bench with a predetermined mind. He therefore submitted that the whole issue

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

2(14) of the Act, the profit arose on transfer of such capital asset is to be treated as long term capital gain. Neither the provisions of Section 50 nor the provisions of Section 50B shall be attracted in the present matter. Rather provisions of Section 45 and 48 shall be applied. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to recomputed

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

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

35 of 118 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF COURT 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. Facts that emerge are that earlier, the Central Government followed a policy wherein applications for grant of mining lease were invited and the same were approved in favour of a party on the basis of first-come

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

2(14) of the Act, the profit arose on transfer of such capital asset is to be treated as long term capital gain. Neither the provisions of Section 50 nor the provisions of Section 50B shall be attracted in the present matter. Rather provisions of Section 45 and 48 shall be applied. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to recomputed

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

CIT vs. M/S 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

capital gains". 4. The assessment order does not mention the date on which the shares in question were purchased. We also note that the assessment order records that the assessee had converted and transferred the shares in question under the head "investment" on 1st April, 2004. This factual position was not disputed or questioned. The shares in question were sold

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

capital gains at the time of amalgamation and subsequent demerger in the present case. Thus, the shares of BIL received by the assessee from KCTBL at the time of tax neutral demerger was also exempt from tax and the said transaction was not considered as ‘transfer’. 33. It is submitted that section 49(1)(e)of the Act specifically provides