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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book as under:- “1. The assessee has filed E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book as under:- “1. The assessee has filed E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book as under:- “1. The assessee has filed E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book as under:- “1. The assessee has filed E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book as under:- “1. The assessee has filed E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book as under:- “1. The assessee has filed E- return declaring total income of Rs. 1,67,64,284/–. A detailed information regarding wrong disclosure of capital gains have been received from The DDIT (Investigation) Unit – I, New Delhi, vide letter dated 9/6/2011, intimating that Dr Prannoy Roy and Mrs. Radhika Roy have opened a jointly

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

43(1) are attracted in the case of the assessee. Statement of WDV without taking into consideration of section 35(1)(vi) and the value at which the assets were taken over by the assessee is as under: Particulars WDV as on 31.3.2004 Value at which (under IT Act without taken over by taking into consideration assessee

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

43(1) are attracted in the case of the assessee. Statement of WDV without taking into consideration of section 35(1)(vi) and the value at which the assets were taken over by the assessee is as under: Particulars WDV as on 31.3.2004 Value at which (under IT Act without taken over by taking into consideration assessee

M/S. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

43(1) are attracted in the case of the assessee. Statement of WDV without taking into consideration of section 35(1)(vi) and the value at which the assets were taken over by the assessee is as under: Particulars WDV as on 31.3.2004 Value at which (under IT Act without taken over by taking into consideration assessee

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

43(1) are attracted in the case of the assessee. Statement of WDV without taking into consideration of section 35(1)(vi) and the value at which the assets were taken over by the assessee is as under: Particulars WDV as on 31.3.2004 Value at which (under IT Act without taken over by taking into consideration 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

43,971 78,813 67,802 Shares Percentage to 97.48% 03.8% 0.74% 0.32% 0.57% 0.49% Total quantity Gain or loss 1,19,85,50,369 86,05,051 20,57,841 21,45,605 22,70,962 19,21,580 21 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 Percentage of Capital gain to Total capital gain 98.34% 0.70% 0.16% 0.17% 0.18% 0.15% *inclusive

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

43,971 78,813 67,802 Shares Percentage to 97.48% 03.8% 0.74% 0.32% 0.57% 0.49% Total quantity Gain or loss 1,19,85,50,369 86,05,051 20,57,841 21,45,605 22,70,962 19,21,580 21 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 Percentage of Capital gain to Total capital gain 98.34% 0.70% 0.16% 0.17% 0.18% 0.15% *inclusive

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

43,971 78,813 67,802 Shares Percentage to 97.48% 03.8% 0.74% 0.32% 0.57% 0.49% Total quantity Gain or loss 1,19,85,50,369 86,05,051 20,57,841 21,45,605 22,70,962 19,21,580 21 I.T.A. No.3078/Del/2011, 820/Del/2013 & 5054/Del/2015 Percentage of Capital gain to Total capital gain 98.34% 0.70% 0.16% 0.17% 0.18% 0.15% *inclusive

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

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

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

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Services [2000] 5 SCC 515; and Padman Sundra Rao vs State of Tamil Page 12 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC), for the proposition that it is one of the fundamental principles of interpretation of statute that omissions in statute as a general Rule cannot be supplied by construction. It was submitted that

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Services [2000] 5 SCC 515; and Padman Sundra Rao vs State of Tamil Page 12 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147 (SC), for the proposition that it is one of the fundamental principles of interpretation of statute that omissions in statute as a general Rule cannot be supplied by construction. It was submitted that