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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book. He submitted that it has been specifically mentioned that in reasons recorded that learned assessing officer before recording the reasons, has perused return of the total income filed by the assessee, compared the same with the information, it was noted by him that assessee has not shown any long-term capital gain and short-term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book. He submitted that it has been specifically mentioned that in reasons recorded that learned assessing officer before recording the reasons, has perused return of the total income filed by the assessee, compared the same with the information, it was noted by him that assessee has not shown any long-term capital gain and short-term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book. He submitted that it has been specifically mentioned that in reasons recorded that learned assessing officer before recording the reasons, has perused return of the total income filed by the assessee, compared the same with the information, it was noted by him that assessee has not shown any long-term capital gain and short-term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book. He submitted that it has been specifically mentioned that in reasons recorded that learned assessing officer before recording the reasons, has perused return of the total income filed by the assessee, compared the same with the information, it was noted by him that assessee has not shown any long-term capital gain and short-term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book. He submitted that it has been specifically mentioned that in reasons recorded that learned assessing officer before recording the reasons, has perused return of the total income filed by the assessee, compared the same with the information, it was noted by him that assessee has not shown any long-term capital gain and short-term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book. He submitted that it has been specifically mentioned that in reasons recorded that learned assessing officer before recording the reasons, has perused return of the total income filed by the assessee, compared the same with the information, it was noted by him that assessee has not shown any long-term capital gain and short-term

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

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

M/S. BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed on transfer

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

capital goods and equipment during manufacture and erection stages for oil & gas and general engineering sectors, encompassing; ~ Review of Detailed Engineering ~ Independent Analysis and Review of Designs/Drawings ~Conformance of Materials & Equipments to National/International Codes - ~ Review and Approval of Inspection Test Plans ~Review of Installation, Pre-commissioning and Commissioning Procedures ~ Third Party Inspection Services / Pre-shipment Inspection ~ Supervision of Site Construction

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

d) Union of India vs. Azadi Bachao Andolan and Another (263 ITR 706), (e) Vodafone International holdings B.V Vs Union of India & Anr 341 ITR 1 [2012]” 5.3 In view of the aforesaid submissions and case laws, Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is a resident of Mauritius and entitled to the benefit given under India-Mauritius Tax treaty

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

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

D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred

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

The appeals are disposed of

D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

D relating to profit and gains of business or profession. Reference was made to Section 32, which provides for deduction of depreciation in respect of block of assets at such percentage as is prescribed provided the asset is owned by the assessee and was used for the purpose of business. Section 50 of the Act was referred

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