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

The appeals are disposed of

capital 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

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

43. The lower authorities relying on the judgment of De Beers Consolidated Mines Limited vs Howe (5 TC 198) (HL) have held that the word “control and management of affairs wholly situated in India” used in section 6(3) of the Act is equivalent to “central control and management” and would satisfy the requirements of section 6(3) even

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

capital gains) as genuine. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the action of ld AO in making addition of Rs 64,90,468/- without appreciating spirit of law contained in section 10(38) and section 43

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets. If it was the case of the Revenue that there was in fact any such slump sale the treatment itself would be very different and the question of any disallowance as a revenue expenditure would not even arise. He pointed out that the Revenue was unclear whether the transaction

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets. If it was the case of the Revenue that there was in fact any such slump sale the treatment itself would be very different and the question of any disallowance as a revenue expenditure would not even arise. He pointed out that the Revenue was unclear whether the transaction

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

43,971 78,813 67,802 of shares Percentag 97.48% 03.8% 0.74% 0.32% 0.57% 0.49% e to Total Quality Gain or 1,19,85,50,36 86,05,05 20,57,84 21,45,60 22,70,96 19,21,58 loss 9 1 1 5 2 0 Percentag 98.34% 0.70% 0.16% 017% 0.18% 0.15% e of Capital gain

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the appeal of assessee is allowed

section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) and registered with the\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India, or such other fund, which raises or\ncollects monies from investors and invests such funds in accordance with such\nregulations as may be made by the Securities and Exchange Board of India in\nthis behalf;\"\n\n14. Then

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section, for claiming the deduction on the\ncapital gains on the sale of the land, the first requirement is that capital gain\nshould arise from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years\nimmediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used\nby the assessee being an individual or his parent

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption was claimed in respect of a residential property acquired at Kanpur i.e the "new asset". That other than the "New Asset" the appellant was the legal owner of only one Residential Property at Sky lounge Pune. The L.D A.O however disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption was claimed in respect of a residential property acquired at Kanpur i.e the "new asset". That other than the "New Asset" the appellant was the legal owner of only one Residential Property at Sky lounge Pune. The L.D A.O however disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

capital gains taxation by the AO\n6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of\nthe existing arrangement\nPara 11 (page 24-27) ECL\nPara 11 (page 23-25) ECOM\n6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom\nBusiness from Onshore to offshore\nPara 12 (page 27-33) ECL\nPara 12 (page 26-31) ECOM\n6.3 Acquisition

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

section 9(1)(i) would be available to the assessee only as a defense to support the claims made by him in the return of income and not for claiming any extra benefit beyond the return of income. 42. In this context, we must observe that in the termination agreement dated 1st February, 2017, a copy of which is placed

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

43,452 Resulting Correct Long-Term Capital Gain = 6,47,06,548 (against the assessed figure of 7,01,46,841 or the incorrect revised figure of 5,95,05,940) 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the proof of construction of the new property was duly submitted during

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., 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

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

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 80TTA of the Act in computation sheet. (Tax Effect Rs. 2,060/-) 6. That the learned Assessing Officer has further erred both in law and on facts in levying interest of Rs. 9,486/- u/s 234B of the Act which is not leviable on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. Prayer: It is therefore, prayed

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

section 143(3) has disallowed the indexedcost of acquisition/ improvement to the tune of Rs.15,46,46,953/- and recomputed the long term capital gain at Rs. 28,43

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain of Rs.17,13,015/- u/s\n54 of the Act and therefore the addition of Rs.17,13,015/- made by the\nAO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Accordingly, grounds no.1\nand 2 of the appeal is allowed.\n10. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had\npurchased a property at N-1 Kailash Colony