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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

41,927 open offer SEBI open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,438 93,60,086 market 09/03/10 Purchased Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,28,39,011 from RRPR Market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

41,927 open offer SEBI open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,438 93,60,086 market 09/03/10 Purchased Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,28,39,011 from RRPR Market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

41,927 open offer SEBI open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,438 93,60,086 market 09/03/10 Purchased Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,28,39,011 from RRPR Market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

41,927 open offer SEBI open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,438 93,60,086 market 09/03/10 Purchased Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,28,39,011 from RRPR Market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

41,927 open offer SEBI open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,438 93,60,086 market 09/03/10 Purchased Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,28,39,011 from RRPR Market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

41,927 open offer SEBI open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,438 93,60,086 market 09/03/10 Purchased Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,28,39,011 from RRPR Market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,41,96,869/- 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

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,41,96,869/- 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

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

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,41,96,869/- 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

capital nature at the time when they were received. The present case is one of a trading liability being earlier allowed as a deduction and which is sought to be recalled under Section 41(1) of the Act. At the cost of repetition it may be added that in CIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) the revenue sought

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

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

capital nature at the time when they were received. The present case is one of a trading liability being earlier allowed as a deduction and which is sought to be recalled under Section 41(1) of the Act. At the cost of repetition it may be added that in CIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) the revenue sought

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LTD.

capital nature at the time when they were received. The present case is one of a trading liability being earlier allowed as a deduction and which is sought to be recalled under Section 41(1) of the Act. At the cost of repetition it may be added that in CIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (supra) the revenue sought

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

1. Between common parties, identical issues arise for determination in these two appeals; albeit for two assessment years, viz., Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. ITA 1069 OF 2007 relates to Assessment Year 1999-2000 and since it is prior in point ITA Nos.417 of 2007 & 1069 of 2007 Page 2 of 22 of time, we have taken note

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

1. Between common parties, identical issues arise for determination in these two appeals; albeit for two assessment years, viz., Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. ITA 1069 OF 2007 2010:DHC:6300-DB of time, we have taken note of the facts of this appeal to understand the issues involved and to answer the same. 2. For this year

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

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

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)

1,09,41,612/- 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