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)

capital asset if it is held for not more than thirty-six months. However, in the case of share of an unlisted company or a unit of a Mutual Fund specified under clause (23D) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, which is transferred during the period beginning on 1st April, 2014 and ending on 10th July

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

capital gains tax liability in India. This circular was a clear enunciation of the provisions contained in the DTAC, which would have overriding effect over the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 by virtue of section 90(1) of the Act. If, in the teeth of this clarification, the assessing officers chose to ignore

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 28 (va) of the Income Tax Act to assume that the consideration for sale of shares could be taxed as business profit of the assessee ignoring the fact that u/s. 28 (va) there is specific exclusion of capital gains from the scope of tax liability under the head ‘business’ or ‘profession’. The terms of the contract between the assesses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

44,265 Total Expenses claimed 86,04,017.13 The AO disallowed the above expenses for the reason that the above expenditures are not allowed to be claimed under the head Capital Gains u/s 48 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) after considering the detailed

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

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 48 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had committed two errors while computing capital gain at Rs. 7,31,67,674/-, the first one being he had adopted conversion rate percentage TTBR i.e. telegraphic transfer buying rate on the date of transfer @ 1.62. The submission of the Ld. AR is that the agreement

MDLR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

capital asset and, therefore, no profits or gains is chargeable to tax under section 45 (4). 20. So far as the grounds of appeal No. 1 to 1.4 are concerned wherein the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to enhance the income by Rs.13,04,50,800/-, he submitted that the CIT(A) has no power to enhance

MDLR BUILDERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

capital asset and, therefore, no profits or gains is chargeable to tax under section 45 (4). 20. So far as the grounds of appeal No. 1 to 1.4 are concerned wherein the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to enhance the income by Rs.13,04,50,800/-, he submitted that the CIT(A) has no power to enhance

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year. When the word „transfer‟ itself has been defined under Section 2(47) (vi) and by virtue of Explanation 1 "shall" have the same meaning as Section 269UA(d) then it is not possible to 'restrict' Explanation 1 to only those transactions described in Chapter XXC. Explanation

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year. When the word „transfer‟ itself has been defined under Section 2(47) (vi) and by virtue of Explanation 1 "shall" have the same meaning as Section 269UA(d) then it is not possible to 'restrict' Explanation 1 to only those transactions described in Chapter XXC. Explanation

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year. When the word „transfer‟ itself has been defined under Section 2(47) (vi) and by virtue of Explanation 1 "shall" have the same meaning as Section 269UA(d) then it is not possible to 'restrict' Explanation 1 to only those transactions described in Chapter XXC. Explanation

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain.” 4.4 Hence, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal (supra) the Grounds 1 and 2 are accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. 5. The Grounds No. 3 relates to disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) 5.1 The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B. Since there is no specific reference to section 92 in section 44

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to (43B), the profits and gains of any business of insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a cooperative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule". Section 44

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ARJUN PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

44 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri, New Delhi. resulting in profit liable to be taxed as income under the head “business”, but manifestly was a transaction of sale of a capital asset giving rise to a long term capital gain for the reasons set out hereunder : (i) The Assessing Officer has largely based

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MOHINDER PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

44 ITA.Nos.2309 & 2310/Del./2011 Shri Arjun Puri And Shri Mohinder Puri, New Delhi. resulting in profit liable to be taxed as income under the head “business”, but manifestly was a transaction of sale of a capital asset giving rise to a long term capital gain for the reasons set out hereunder : (i) The Assessing Officer has largely based

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

44 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 Once the sale transaction is reversed and the asset is owned and held by the assessee being the seller, ostensibly no capital gain can be said to have accrued to the assessee at all. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has observed in the case of CIT vs. Vithalbhai P. Patel (1999) 102 Taxman

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

44 I.T.As. No.4736, 5237 & 5238/DEL/2017 Once the sale transaction is reversed and the asset is owned and held by the assessee being the seller, ostensibly no capital gain can be said to have accrued to the assessee at all. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has observed in the case of CIT vs. Vithalbhai P. Patel (1999) 102 Taxman