THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred its shareholding in JFAL in lieu of receipt of shares of JSL and claimed that the transaction was exempt from capital gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred its shareholding in JFAL in lieu of receipt of shares of JSL and claimed that the transaction was exempt from capital gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred its shareholding in JFAL in lieu of receipt of shares of JSL and claimed that the transaction was exempt from capital gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, JFAL got amalgamated with Jindal Strips Ltd. (“JSL”). Consequently, the Respondent-assessee company transferred its shareholding in JFAL in lieu of receipt of shares of JSL and claimed that the transaction was exempt from capital gain

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:

section 2(19AA) of the Act were also satisfied. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is submitted that, since all the conditions as provided in section 2(1B) and section 2(19AA) of the Act were duly satisfied, therefore, the scheme of amalgamation and demerger in the present case was, without any doubt, tax neutral

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

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

Section 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956. Whilst the Assessee claims that it has incurred a short term capital loss of Rs.11,14,31,696/- on the sale of the said undertaking, the Assessing Officer (hereafter „the AO‟) has assessed the said transaction as resulting in a short term capital gain

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act on the impugned transfer. In facts of the case it is observed that appellant has transferred specified telecom assets under the scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Section 391

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BHARTI INFRATEL LTD AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE INDUS TOWER LTD) ,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act on the impugned transfer. In facts of the case it is observed that appellant has transferred specified telecom assets under the scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Section 391

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act on the impugned transfer. In facts of the case it is observed that appellant has transferred specified telecom assets under the scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Section 391

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act on the impugned transfer. In facts of the case it is observed that appellant has transferred specified telecom assets under the scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Section 391

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, CR BUILDING vs. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, GURGRAM

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain u/s 45 of the Act on the impugned transfer. In facts of the case it is observed that appellant has transferred specified telecom assets under the scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court under Section 391

SH. HARISH KANWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

391/- made by the AO invoking the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 3(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above addition despite the fact that the said amount was never received by the assessee from the companies

Date of order: 9th November, 2011 vs. ASHA DALMIA

Capital Gains”. He accordingly held that the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bawa Charan Singh versus CIT, (supra) was not applicable while the decision of the Allahabad High Court in CIT versus Gulab Chand, (1991) 192 ITR 495 was applicable. 7. CIT (Appeals) in his order dated 3rd September, 1996 examined the question of tenancy rights and whether

PRIAPUS DEVELOPERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

gain”. If we go by this logic, the exemption from definition of the word “transfer” as provided in sub-section (vi) of section 47 will also apply only in respect of computation of “book profit”. As per this argument, the entire appreciation recorded in the books of accounts post amalgamation, would become taxable for the purpose of computation of “book

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAWANA SUGAR LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

Capital Gains” on transfer of land to M/s Shivaji Marg Properties Limited and investments to M/s Siel Holdings Limited pursuant to a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned under sections 391

SIEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

Capital Gains” on transfer of land to M/s Shivaji Marg Properties Limited and investments to M/s Siel Holdings Limited pursuant to a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned under sections 391

SIEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2006-07, 2012-

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahman

Capital Gains” on transfer of land to M/s Shivaji Marg Properties Limited and investments to M/s Siel Holdings Limited pursuant to a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned under sections 391

ASHUTOSH GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2013-14

Section. It is not the case whereby revising the computation the assessee had claimed some extra loss in fact he has reduced the loss earlier claimed. The Ld. A.O. had accepted the revised computation made by the assessee and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) made the disallowance misinterpreting the facts of the case. 18. Heard rival contentions and perused the orders