M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Before Shri G.S. Pannu Before Shri G.S. Pannu & Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

35D of the Act is 29 ITA-790 to 792/Del/2015 allowed in terms of our above discussion. Thus, assessee partly succeeds in this Ground of appeal. 38. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.792/Del/2015 for assessment year 2012-13, which is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-24 (erstwhile

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 37 of the IT Act. As mentioned above, the Appellant is a financial institution; subscription in shares is one of the ways to provide finance to the companies, which are in need of funds, thus akin to operations of bank. It is, therefore, submitted that loss on Page 8 of 29 write-off of shares which are held

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 37 of the IT Act. As mentioned above, the Appellant is a financial institution; subscription in shares is one of the ways to provide finance to the companies, which are in need of funds, thus akin to operations of bank. It is, therefore, submitted that loss on Page 8 of 29 write-off of shares which are held

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD.

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

Section 35D of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the same and relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Brook Bond India Limited v. CIT, 225 ITR 798 disallowed the same treating the expenditure as capital in nature. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer further found that assessee had claimed

RATNA COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. N. K. Choudharyassessment Year: 2011-12 Ratna Commercial Vs. Adit Enterprises Pvt Ltd. 4Th Floor, Range-21 Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Rouse, New Delhi Avenue, New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 35D and relying on various decisions the AO disallowed the amount of Rs.2,67,847/- claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure on account of filing fees paid to ROC for increase in the share capital. 4. The AO further noted that the assessee has treated the profit from share transactions amounting to Rs. 93,08,807/- as short

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u/s 2(14) is available even when sale of the agricultural land takes place on agreement to sell

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u/s 2(14) is available even when sale of the agricultural land takes place on agreement to sell

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u/s 2(14) is available even when sale of the agricultural land takes place on agreement to sell

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Gain from sale of land could not be taxed as profit arising from adventure in nature of trade, merely because of short period of holding 14. Tulla Veerender Vs. ACIT, Range-6 [2013] 144 ITD 440 (Hyderabad – Trib.) V. Exemption u/s 2(14) is available even when sale of the agricultural land takes place on agreement to sell

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)

Capital Gains on sale of shares. Hence, there was no concealment of income. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty for furnishing in accurate particulars of income. It is not the case where the details furnished by the assessee were found to be incorrect with respect to LTCG earned during the year. It was the claim of exemption u/s. 65F which

VATIKA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

35D of the act but not claimed in the original return of income as the same was capitalized by debiting to securities premium account 4 Non-claim of statutory deduction under 36224744/– section 24 of the act in the original return of income by incorrectly treating rental income of INR 1 36887170/– as income from business instead of income from

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

35D of the Act on the ground that expenses claimed related to public issue which did not take place. 2.1 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 9,67,500 being the loan documentation expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act on the ground that no details

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

35D of the Act on the ground that expenses claimed related to public issue which did not take place. 2.1 That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction of Rs. 9,67,500 being the loan documentation expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act on the ground that no details

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA CARE LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result ITA number 981/Del/2011 filed by the learned assessing officer for the assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital in nature. As in the present case also the deduction allowed to the assessee under section 35D initially has not been disturbed, therefore the learned assessing officer cannot now disturbed in subsequent years this deduction. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 24. Ground number 3 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance deleted

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA CARE LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result ITA number 981/Del/2011 filed by the learned assessing officer for the assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital in nature. As in the present case also the deduction allowed to the assessee under section 35D initially has not been disturbed, therefore the learned assessing officer cannot now disturbed in subsequent years this deduction. Accordingly, ground number 2 of the appeal is dismissed. 24. Ground number 3 of the appeal is with respect to the disallowance deleted

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL -3 vs. DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD.

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 35D of the Act. This by itself according to him belied the claim of the Assessee that only surplus funds were invested in the sale and purchase transactions of shares. It was submitted that considering the value of the transactions and the quantum of ITA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 4 of 7 profit earned by the Assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD.

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 35D of the Act. This by itself according to him belied the claim of the Assessee that only surplus funds were invested in the sale and purchase transactions of shares. It was submitted that considering the value of the transactions and the quantum of ITA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 4 of 7 profit earned by the Assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 vs. DREAMLAND BUILD TECH P. LTD

Bench: Itat Being The Assessee'S Appeals). 2. The Common Question Sought To Be Urged In These Appeals By The Revenue Is Whether The Itat Was Justified In Treating The Income Earned By The Assessee From The Shares In Which It Invested Its Surplus Funds As 'Short Term Capital Gains' & Not Under The Head 'Income From Business & Profession'? 3. The Assessee Company Was Incorporated On 19^'^ October 2004. In The First Ay I.E. 2005-06 It Declared Income From The Investment In Shares As

Section 35D of the Act. This by itself according to him belied the claim of the Assessee that only surplus funds were invested in the sale and purchase transactions of shares. It was submitted that considering the value of the transactions and the quantum of ITA Nos. 829/2015, 908/2015 & 886/2015 Page 4 of 7 profit earned by the Assessee