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

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(38) of I.T. Act, 1961. 8.1.1 I find that the appellant had made investment in shares of little known company(s). The Income Tax Investigation Authorities (and SEBI) have made detailed enquiries to establish that the persons connected with M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd., were systematically involved in the activity of converting unaccounted cash into long /short term capital

SUNITA KHEMKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

9. Ld AO has alleged in his assessment order that the appellant was not produced before him for recording of statement. In this regard, it is to submit that the appellant had delivered a baby few time back only and she was not in a 23 ITA.No.389/Del./2018 Smt. Sunita Khemka, New Delhi. position to appear before

SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 16, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2012-13

9. Thus, the order of the AO in accepting the full value of the consideration received on transfer of shares cannot be held to be erroneous and therefore, such assessment order could not have been set aside or cancelled. 10. It appears that the only reason by the Ld. PCIT to hold that assessment order is erroneous

SMT. NEELAM MALHOTRA,DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 16, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year: 2012-13

9. Thus, the order of the AO in accepting the full value of the consideration received on transfer of shares cannot be held to be erroneous and therefore, such assessment order could not have been set aside or cancelled. 10. It appears that the only reason by the Ld. PCIT to hold that assessment order is erroneous

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

SHIKHA DHAWAN,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 4(2), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini[Assessment Year: 2014-15] Vs Smt. Shikha Dhawan, Ito, C-101, Centre Park, Ward-4(2), Sector-42, Gurgaon. Gurgaon. Pan-Ccbps1718L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Gautam Jain & Sh. Peeyush Kamal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.L.Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2018

9. Ld AO has alleged in his assessment order that the appellant was not produced before him for recording of statement. In this regard, it is to submit that the appellant had delivered a baby few time back only and she was not in a position to appear before the Ld. AO due to her medical condition. We had made

M/S GEO CONNECT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

40a(i).” 9.9.3 The Ld. Commissioner of income tax (appeals) alternatively also held that amounts of remittance were chargeable as Fee for Technical Service (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) read with article 12(2) and 12(4) of the DTAA between USA and India with following observations: “2.3.5 In the case similar to the case of the appellant, where

GEO CONVEST LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1),

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

40a(i).” 9.9.3 The Ld. Commissioner of income tax (appeals) alternatively also held that amounts of remittance were chargeable as Fee for Technical Service (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) read with article 12(2) and 12(4) of the DTAA between USA and India with following observations: “2.3.5 In the case similar to the case of the appellant, where

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GEO CONNECT LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

40a(i).” 9.9.3 The Ld. Commissioner of income tax (appeals) alternatively also held that amounts of remittance were chargeable as Fee for Technical Service (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) read with article 12(2) and 12(4) of the DTAA between USA and India with following observations: “2.3.5 In the case similar to the case of the appellant, where

DCIT CIRCLE-12 (1) vs. GEO CONNECT LTD,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

40a(i).” 9.9.3 The Ld. Commissioner of income tax (appeals) alternatively also held that amounts of remittance were chargeable as Fee for Technical Service (FTS) under section 9(1)(vii) read with article 12(2) and 12(4) of the DTAA between USA and India with following observations: “2.3.5 In the case similar to the case of the appellant, where

MRS. MALA KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Mala Kumar, Vs Acit, D-217, Defence Colony, Circle-52(1), New Delhi. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaipk8127G

section 40A(2) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the amount paid to M/s Shikhar Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd. as compensation should be allowed as deduction while computing the long-term capital gain. 12. So far as the denial of claim of exemption u/s 54 is concerned, he submitted that no finding was given

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- Salaries.” 22. Further, Section 56 of the Income Tax Act reads as under: “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income- tax under

DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- Salaries.” 22. Further, Section 56 of the Income Tax Act reads as under: “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income- tax under

DDIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- Salaries.” 22. Further, Section 56 of the Income Tax Act reads as under: “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income- tax under

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. ,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- Salaries.” 22. Further, Section 56 of the Income Tax Act reads as under: “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income- tax under

CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBONS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- Salaries.” 22. Further, Section 56 of the Income Tax Act reads as under: “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income- tax under

DCIT, INTL. TAXATION, CIRCLE, GURGAON vs. CAIRN ENERGY HYDROCARBON LTD. , GURGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6357/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Cairn Energy Hydrocarbon Ltd., C/O. Cairn India Ltd., 3Rd & 4Th Circle-3(2), International Taxation, Floor, Vipul Plaza, Suncity, Sector- New Delhi 54, Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccc3279J

Capital gains. F.- Income from other sources. A.- Salaries.” 22. Further, Section 56 of the Income Tax Act reads as under: “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”, if it is not chargeable to income- tax under

SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjay Jain, Vs. Acit, Chamber No. 488, Circle 37(1), Delhi High Court Block-Ii. New Delhi. Sher Shah Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aagpj8607A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ra Bansal & Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. Department By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 15 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On The Following Grounds: 1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.16,70,574/- Made By The Assessing Officer To The Long Term Capital Gain Declared By The Assessee At Rs.1,47,823/-. Since The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Is Contrary To Law & Therefore, Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Cost Of Improvement While Calculating Long Term Capital Gain Earned By The Assessee On Transfer Of Property.

capital gain on the ground that there was no corresponding entry in the bank account in respect of payment of the expenses which is contrary to facts on record. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the benefit of section 54 of the Act to the assessee ignoring that all the conditions prescribed therein had been