DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 143 (1) of the Act at the returned income. 6. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of The Income Tax Act [the Act] was issued on 25/7/2011. Reasons recorded shows that reopening is on perusal of return of income based on information received per letter dated 6/6/2011 from The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit –II, New Delhi [DDIT] holding

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

41,96,869/- by treating long term capital gain and short-term capital gain as business income. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made u/s. 14A from Rs. 57.64 lacs to Rs. 32.14 lacs. Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief to the assessee

ACIT, 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

41,96,869/- by treating long term capital gain and short-term capital gain as business income. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made u/s. 14A from Rs. 57.64 lacs to Rs. 32.14 lacs. Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief to the assessee

ACIT, 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

41,96,869/- by treating long term capital gain and short-term capital gain as business income. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made u/s. 14A from Rs. 57.64 lacs to Rs. 32.14 lacs. Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving relief to the assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 41(2) of the Act and not as capital gains. In the circumstances, the judgment of this Court in the case

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

Section 41(2) of the Act and not as capital gains. In the circumstances, the judgment of this Court in the case

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

41,612/- and short term capital gain of Rs 67,87654/-. Apart from that, the assessee has also shown income from dividend which has been claimed as exempt income. 4. The assessee has filed return of income, declaring at Rs.72,16,819/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section

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)

section 2 (42A) of the act. Therefore, AO treated shares of Scorpio beverages P Ltd as short-term capital asset and computed the short-term capital gain accordingly. Assessee submitted before the assessing officer that she has borrowed loan for making investment in the shares of Scorpio beverages private limited. Interest of INR 37317628/– has been incurred as expenses during

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

capital gains arising from sale of shares would not be taxable in India. It is not in dispute that Circular No.789 dated 13th April 2000 continued to be in force between India and Mauritius at the relevant time. 40. A press release dated 1st March 2013 from the Finance Ministry which is quoted as under also unequivocally declares that

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

gains. A bare reading of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act would show that, the very fact that, there is a reference to, in arriving at the cost of acquisition, to the written down value of the „block of assets at the beginning of the previous year as increased by actual cost of assets

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

gains. A bare reading of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act would show that, the very fact that, there is a reference to, in arriving at the cost of acquisition, to the written down value of the „block of assets at the beginning of the previous year as increased by actual cost of assets

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

gains. A bare reading of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act would show that, the very fact that, there is a reference to, in arriving at the cost of acquisition, to the written down value of the „block of assets at the beginning of the previous year as increased by actual cost of assets

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

gains. A bare reading of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act would show that, the very fact that, there is a reference to, in arriving at the cost of acquisition, to the written down value of the „block of assets at the beginning of the previous year as increased by actual cost of assets