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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book where reasons recorded are placed. Assessee submitted that Learned-assessing officer stating that para number 1 and 2 are the copy paste of the report of the investigation wing and para number 3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book where reasons recorded are placed. Assessee submitted that Learned-assessing officer stating that para number 1 and 2 are the copy paste of the report of the investigation wing and para number 3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book where reasons recorded are placed. Assessee submitted that Learned-assessing officer stating that para number 1 and 2 are the copy paste of the report of the investigation wing and para number 3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book where reasons recorded are placed. Assessee submitted that Learned-assessing officer stating that para number 1 and 2 are the copy paste of the report of the investigation wing and para number 3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book where reasons recorded are placed. Assessee submitted that Learned-assessing officer stating that para number 1 and 2 are the copy paste of the report of the investigation wing and para number 3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

43 of the paper book where reasons recorded are placed. Assessee submitted that Learned-assessing officer stating that para number 1 and 2 are the copy paste of the report of the investigation wing and para number 3 of reasons recorded shows that the assessee has failed to disclose the long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain in the return

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

6. Thereafter, he again referred to various decisions as discussed from pages 15 to 22 of his order including CBDT Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007 and concluded that assessee was dealing in sale and purchase of shares for earning profit and tax them under the head ‘business income’ in the following manner: Long Term Capital gain

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

6. Thereafter, he again referred to various decisions as discussed from pages 15 to 22 of his order including CBDT Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007 and concluded that assessee was dealing in sale and purchase of shares for earning profit and tax them under the head ‘business income’ in the following manner: Long Term Capital gain

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

6. Thereafter, he again referred to various decisions as discussed from pages 15 to 22 of his order including CBDT Circular No.4 of 2007 dated 15th June, 2007 and concluded that assessee was dealing in sale and purchase of shares for earning profit and tax them under the head ‘business income’ in the following manner: Long Term Capital gain

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

capital gains arising out of the slump sale under Section 50B of the Act at Rs.2,26,89,866/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) concurred with the AO and held that the language of sub- clause (b) of Clause C [Section 43(6

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)

6. The learned assessing officer rejected the contentions of the assessee and held that in case of unlisted companies Equity shares, if held for less than 36 months, then it is a short-term capital asset. The learned AO relied heavily on provisions of section 2 (42A) of the act. The AO held that there is no need

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

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

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

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

CIT 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 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

M/S. GURU KRIPA AGRO FOODS,HARYANA vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

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

6 of the APB, it is clear that the deed mentions dissolution of firm on 31.3.2008, but it was notarized only on 2.9.2008 during A.Y 2009-10. From the copies of the capital accounts of the assessee, retiring partners available at pages 29 – 30 APB, it is also vivid that the transfer of assets was recorded in the books