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

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

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

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

Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been taxed in assessment year 2007 – 08. AO further stated that assessee himself is not sure in which year he would like to offer the taxability of the capital gain arising on the sale of the above property. However

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

Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been taxed in assessment year 2007 – 08. AO further stated that assessee himself is not sure in which year he would like to offer the taxability of the capital gain arising on the sale of the above property. However

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

Section 54EC of the Act. He also rejected the contention of the assessee that the capital gain should have been taxed in assessment year 2007 – 08. AO further stated that assessee himself is not sure in which year he would like to offer the taxability of the capital gain arising on the sale of the above property. However

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

37. It is clear from the aforesaid that capital gains derived by a resident of Mauritius by alienation of shares of companies shall be taxable in Mauritius only and will not have any capital gains tax liability in India. 38. Further, reliance was placed upon another Circular No.789 dated 13th April 2000 issued by the CBDT which clarified that companies

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. AJAY KAILA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh.

1,37,22,500/- and has shown long-term capital gain on the same at Rs.99,53,675/-. The assessee has claimed deduction under section

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)

capital gains on the shares which were acquired in 2008 and sold in 2011, which is much before 1 April 2017, is unsustainable and bad in law. V. The Assessee is not a resident of India as its control & management is not situated wholly in India: a. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined every year

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

capital gain in the hands of family members of the assessee and material was confronted to the assessee. Therefore, it is a case of concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) of the 11 ITA.No.2871/Del./2018 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi. Act. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, held that as no return of income under normal course

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)

1 merchant banker 3Dimension capital services Ltd dated 09/05/2019. According to such report, the fair valuation per share is INR 9.93. The assessee has also Mrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs The Additional CIT , New Delhi submitted as additional evidence the certificate [ valuation report] of the chartered accountant dated 10th may 2019, which has valued the sale price

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 vs. MANUPATRA INFORMATION SOLUTION

The appeal is disposed of declaring the law as above and setting aside

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Capitalism : A Very Short Introduction : (160 pages; 48 pages copied constituting 30%; publisher Cambridge University Press; Approximate Price : Paper Back `225, Hard bound Data N/A) (iii) Post-Colonialism : An Historical Introduction (512 pages; 57 pages copied constituting 11.1%; publisher Oxford University Press; Approximate Price : Paper Back `3126, Hard bound Data N/A) (iv) A Concise History of India : (372 pages

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1 (SC) ii) United Commercial Bank Ltd.Vs.CIT (1957) 32 ITR 688(SC) iii) East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. Vs.CIT(1961) 42 ITR 49 (SC) Page 36 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. iv) CIT Vs. Chugandas & Co. (1964) 55 ITR 17(SC) v) S G Mercantile Corporation