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

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

6, may be taxed in the Contracting State in which such property is situated. 2. Gains from the alienation of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent establishment which an enterprise of a Contracting State has in the other Contracting State or of movable property pertaining to a fixed base available to a resident

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

6\n(page 16) ECOM\n3.\nAnalysis of the results of the background\nproceedings leading to capital gains taxation\nPara 7 (page 18-20) ECL Para 7\n(page 16-19) ECOM\n4.\nSummarising the analysis of the AO\nPara 8 (page 20-22) ECL Para 8\n(page 19-21) ECOM\n5.\nSummarising the analysis of the AAR\nPara

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

6 as acquired for trading purpose. Hence any gain arising from sake of these two shares has to be assessed as ‘capital gain’. 16. Further, from the perusal of details shown under LTCG of other scrips also, we find that the same have been acquired in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and were treated as part of investment

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)

43(5)(d) where statutory status is provided to evidences generated from stock exchange system treating the same to be impeccable and only from finance act 2017 with prospective effective from AY 2018- 2019, amendment is made in section 10(38), prior to which such gains would remain exempt. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add add/alter any/all grounds

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

6 of 32 any use of the land and building by the SGL. The use by it of the land and building in Bhiwadi on a few occasions was like the use by any other group company of SGL. This made it appear that the land and building was in fact not leased. The survey revealed that a training centre

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

6 of 32 any use of the land and building by the SGL. The use by it of the land and building in Bhiwadi on a few occasions was like the use by any other group company of SGL. This made it appear that the land and building was in fact not leased. The survey revealed that a training centre

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

6 [or a pooled investment vehicle or other body\ncorporate]; Further relevant is Section 2(da), of these Regulation, which\ndefines, \"pooled investment vehicle” means a fund established in India in the\nform of a trust or otherwise, such as mutual fund, alternative investment fund,\ncollective investment scheme or a business trust as defined in sub-section (134)\nof section

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

6 are hereby allowed.\nGrounds nos 7 & 8\nSince, ample opportunity has bee opportunity has been granted to the\nappellant, the grounds raised in Ground No 7 and 8 are herewith\naddressed. Hence, this ground stands allowed.\nGround no 9\nThe issue of levy of penalty is premature and does not require adjudication.\nGround No 10\nIs general in nature

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

6) of the Act with the Indian companies, viz., Snapdeal and Ola Cab, elicited response indicating that asssesse’s name neither appears as shareholder in the records of the company, nor any dividend has been issued to the assessee. Even, learned DRP has also recorded a categorical finding that the assessee failed to prove that shares of the Indian companies

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

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

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 years since inception. 6.1 That the assessing officer/DRP completely failed to appreciate

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

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 years since inception. 6.1 That the assessing officer/DRP completely failed to appreciate

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]

6. That the assessing officer while doing the assessment under 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

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, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gain arising out of transfer of healthcare business of slump sale basis to capital tax u/s 50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43