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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Capital Hill Main Road Ranchi Sir, Sub: application for lease of area of 500 acres by m/s. Arcellormitallindian limited mining lease of iron and, manganese ore in West Singhbhum, Meghaburum Karampada RF) Ref: letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of director, mining, Jharkhand In reference to the above letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of the Director Mining Jharkhand it is informed

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

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

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

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

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

41. The case of the Assessee is that by virtue of Explanation (1) to Section 2 (47), Section 269UA (d) (i) is attracted. Section 269UA(f)(i) describes 'transfer' for the purposes of Section 269 UA (d) (i) to mean the transfer of property, including by way of lease, “for a term not less than twelve years.” Therefore