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

The appeals are disposed of

5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 10 of 23 (Rules, for short) prescribes and states the table of rates at which depreciation is admissible and is divided into different parts and sub headings. Rates of depreciation have been prescribed. Assets of different types which have been prescribed same rate

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(5

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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5 of 32 cause notice („SCN‟) requiring the Assessee to explain why the lease agreement should not be treated as a transaction in the nature of sale of the movable/depreciable assets and capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

5 of 32 cause notice („SCN‟) requiring the Assessee to explain why the lease agreement should not be treated as a transaction in the nature of sale of the movable/depreciable assets and capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March

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

5 The assesses has the following type of transactions post 2017 i.e.\nHDFC Balanced Advantage Fund Regular Plan Growth, HDFC Equity\nSavings Fund Regular Plan Growth, HDFC Flexi Cap Fund Direct Plan\nGrowth Option and HDFC Flexi Cap Fund Regular Plan Growth which\nare tabulated as under-\n\nParticular\nCapital Gains\nAmount (Rs.)\nMinimum\nAllocation\nin Equity\n(% of total

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

5(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, the Court concluded that the assessee can claim exemption in respect of shares transferred in the name of the wife. This is so because, section 4(1) provides for clubbing of wealth transferred directly or indirectly otherwise than for adequate consideration to the name of the spouse

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

5 Biswas.\n3. Purchase of land on 26/12/2016 from Mahesh\nAggarwal of 9 Biswas.\n4\nbeing\nused\nfor\nagricultural purposes\nNo\nIt has already been discussed above in the para 4.4 and\n4.5 along with photographs of the properties showing\nclear proof of no agricultural activities being carried\nout on the purchased land. In fact the land purchased is\nbeing

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

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

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

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

5. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in disallowing weighted deduction of Rs.249,57,70,000/- claimed by the appellant under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of R&D expenditure of Rohtak Unit. 5.1 That the assessing officer/DRP filed to appreciate that since Rohtak Unit was duly approved, R&D deduction of Rs.249

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

5. That the assessing officer/DRP erred on facts and in law in disallowing weighted deduction of Rs.249,57,70,000/- claimed by the appellant under section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect of R&D expenditure of Rohtak Unit. 5.1 That the assessing officer/DRP filed to appreciate that since Rohtak Unit was duly approved, R&D deduction of Rs.249

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]

5. That the above sale made by the assessee to its 100% Indian Subsidiary do not fall within the meaning of transfer as per the provisions of section 47(iv) of the Act and hence not chargeable to tax. 6. That the assessing officer while doing the assessment under section 143(3) has disallowed the indexedcost of acquisition/ improvement

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