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)

capital gains on the shares which were acquired in 2008 and sold in 2011, which is much before 1 April 2017, is unsustainable and bad in law. V. The Assessee is not a resident of India as its control & management is not situated wholly in India: a. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined every year

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

The appeals are disposed of

1) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the assets. (2) Written down value of the block assets at the beginning of the previous year. (3) Actual cost of the assets falling within the block of assets acquired during the previous year. 16. Thus, under Section 50 short term capital gains is payable in case after

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives or\nseparate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n\n(c) The trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

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

43 (page 161-173)\nECOM\n9. Non-applicability of paragraph 4 of Article 13 under\nIndia Mauritius Treaty- Application of Section 6(3)\nof the Indian Income Tax Act, Article 4(3) of India\nMauritius Treaty, place of effective management,\ncircular 1 of 2023 clarifying that in the case of\nfindings of facts by the assessing officer establishing\ndual residence

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer

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

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

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

1, 2, 3, and 3A, with the residence state.\n\n10. Relevant to interpret the purport of this protocol is the Press Information\nBureau, Government of India, Ministry of Finance release dated 10-May-2016\non India and Mauritius Protocol for amendment of the Convention for the\nAvoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with\nrespect

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain\narises 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\nused by the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided\nfamily for agricultural purposes (hereinafter referred

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.” 11. In the case of ADIT Vs. Green Emirate Shipping and Travels (286 ITR 60) (Mum.) vide order dated 30.11.2005, the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT held as under: “1. The only grievance raised by the Revenue in this appeal is as follows

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

1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-, being the expenditure on account of foreseen price increase (in short "FPI). disregarding the consistent and accepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last many

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

1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer/ DRP has erred on facts and in law in making disallowance of Rs.36,27,43,195/-, being the expenditure on account of foreseen price increase (in short "FPI). disregarding the consistent and accepted method of accounting followed by the appellant for last many

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

capital gain earned during the year is sufficient for not confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 38 8.8 The facts of the present case clearly indicates that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (Supra), which

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(5)(d) where statutory status is provided to evidences

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA PVT. LTD.

The appeal is dismissed

1-4-1967. In the explanatory process contained in the Bill preceding the Act it was explained as under:- “The proposed section 43-A, in substance, secures that where an assessee had acquired any capital asset from a country outside India for the purposes of his business or profession on deferred payment terms or against foreign loan, before the date