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

364 91 to 180 60 to 90 30 to 59 Less than 365 days days days days days 30 days Quantity of 1,33,65,009* 53,003 1,01,571 43,971 78,813 67,802 Shares Percentage to 97.48% 03.8% 0.74% 0.32% 0.57% 0.49% Total quantity Gain or loss

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)

capital asset if it is held for not more than thirty-six months. However, in the case of share of an unlisted company or a unit of a Mutual Fund specified under clause (23D) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, which is transferred during the period beginning on 1st April, 2014 and ending on 10th July

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

364 91 to 180 60 to 90 30 to 59 Less than Holding days days days days days 30 days Quantity of 1,33,65,009 53,003 1,01,571 43,971 78,813 67,802 shares Percentage 97.48% 03.8% 0.74% 0.32% 0.57% 0.49% to Total Quality Gain

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

364 91 to 180 60 to 90 30 to 59 Less than 365 days days days days days 30 days Quantity of 1,33,65,009* 53,003 1,01,571 43,971 78,813 67,802 Shares Percentage to 97.48% 03.8% 0.74% 0.32% 0.57% 0.49% Total quantity Gain or loss

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

section 14A are mandatory provisions.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee in the Revenue’s Appeal submitted at the outset that identical issue came up in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein the benefit of Long Term Gains arising

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

364 91 to 180 60 to 90 30 to 59 Less than Holding days days days days days 30 days Quantity of 1,33,65,009 53,003 1,01,571 43,971 78,813 67,802 shares Percentage 97.48% 03.8% 0.74% 0.32% 0.57% 0.49% to Total Quality Gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

section 111A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 8 Mahesh Kumar v. The learned assessing officer asked the appellant to furnish details in respect of income, bank accounts etc. vide questionnaire dated 23/08/2010. vi. The appellant submitted details asked by the learned assessing officer vide replies dated 18/10/2010, 25/11/2010, 21/12/2010 and 24/12/2010 during the course of assessment proceedings

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Capital Company Ltd. (‘ KMCC’) to carry out an equity valuation of SBP as of February 28, 2014 (“Valuation Date”) and provide the price per share of SBP, in relation to the proposed acquisition of shares of SBP that CGP does not already own from the Sellers. SBP, through a series of companies in the HoldCo Chain, is an indirect shareholder

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings also, the assessee filed written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his order. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned income shown

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

capital gains not under the head income from\nBusiness.\n36. The next issue is whether the CBDT circular be applied prospectively or\nretrospectively, we observed that this issue was already addressed by the Hon’ble\nCalcutta High Court in the case of Century Plyboards I Ltd (supra), wherein it was\nheld that CBDT Circular 6/2016 dated 29/2/2016 would be applicable

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

364 375 5. In the light of the above, it was claimed that its international transaction was at arm’s length. The TPO did not accept the application of CUP as the most appropriate method as the consulting firms whose rates were cited in the TP study report were only quotations and not 4 actual rates. Such rates were quoted

ARUNIMA ADCON SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

364 ITR 488 on the following facts held as under: Facts “The assessee is a company. In the return for the year in question, it had declared long-term capital gain of {- Rs. 3,34,65,931/- and the said gain was claimed as exempt under Section

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RADHARANI ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

364 ITR 488 on the following facts held as under: Facts “The assessee is a company. In the return for the year in question, it had declared long-term capital gain of {- Rs. 3,34,65,931/- and the said gain was claimed as exempt under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GOMANTAK EXIMIS LTD.,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

capital gains tax chargeable under Section 45 of the 1961 Act.” : 10. It was the submission of learned counsel that only urban agricultural land and which falls within the ambit of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2(14)(iii) would fall outside the ambit of revenue derived from land and thus fall outside the scope of agricultural income

M/S. UNITECH LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

gains chargeable under section 45. Otherwise, a capital receipt is not reckoned as income. This issue of recharacterization of share application money into loan has been considered at length by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. vs UOI (Supra), wherein Hon’ble High Court after detail discussion has concluded that provisions

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. UNITECH LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result this issue is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

gains chargeable under section 45. Otherwise, a capital receipt is not reckoned as income. This issue of recharacterization of share application money into loan has been considered at length by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services (P) Ltd. vs UOI (Supra), wherein Hon’ble High Court after detail discussion has concluded that provisions