MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

gains arising from transfer of a Long term capital asset. Section 2(14) defines "Capital asset" and various exceptions and exclusions have been provided which are not treated as capital asset. Section 45

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

45(1) 'capital gains' are any profits or 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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

45(1) 'capital gains' are any profits or 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

sections": [ "143(3)", "2(14)", "45", "48", "55(2)", "28(via)", "10(38)", "24(b)" ], "issues": "Whether the property converted from stock-in-trade to a capital asset was correctly treated as a capital asset, and if related expenses (stamp duty, interest) are allowable for computing capital gains

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

45, Section 56 and Section 145B the Act specifically exempts compensation and amounts received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for agricultural land (under Section 10 (37) and seeks to tax interest paid under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act (under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act). A harmonious and logical reading of the Act along

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

gains arising from transfer of a Long term capital asset. Section 2(14) defines "Capital asset" and various exceptions and exclusions have been provided which are not treated as capital asset. Section 45

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

gains arising from transfer of a Long term capital asset. Section 2(14) defines "Capital asset" and various exceptions and exclusions have been provided which are not treated as capital asset. Section 45

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

2(19AA) of the Act respectively, is exempt from capital gains. 28. The said section 47 of the Act reads as under: “47. Nothing contained in section 45

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

Section 45 of the Act, the assessee declared long term capital gains of ` 2,83,99,571/- in the following

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

45 of the Act stipulates that profits and gains arising from transfer of a capital asset affected in the previous year is chargeable to income tax under the heading “Capital gains” and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the said transfer took place. This is the charging section. Sections 48 and 49 prescribe

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)

45, the amount chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated in the prescribed manner:] Provided that in the case of an assessee, who is a non- resident, capital gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset being shares

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)

45, the amount chargeable to income-tax as income of such specified entity under that sub-section which is attributable to the capital asset being transferred by the specified entity, calculated in the prescribed manner:] Provided that in the case of an assessee, who is a non- resident, capital gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset being shares

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

section 9(1)(i) of the Act, capital gain arising through or from the transfer of a capital asset situated in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India in all cases irrespective of whether the capital asset is movable or immovable, tangible or intangible; the place of registration of the document of transfer etc. is in India

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the AO in treating the short- term capital gain of Rs.67,87,654/- as the business income of the appellant ignoring the fact of the assessee’s case and also ignoring the guidelines prescribed by CBDT circular no.4/2007 dated 15.06.2007. 3. That

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 45 of the Act during the relevant period is\nreproduced as under:-\nCapital gains.\n8945. [(1)] Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital\nasset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in\nsections 2

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

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]

45 of the Act under the head capital gains. In view of the provisions of section 244A(2) of the Act, the delay

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

2. CWT Vs. Mrs. O.M.M. Kinnison, 161 ITR 824 41. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, we hold that the location of the asset transferred by the assessee, being situated outside India, the capital gain derived would not be taxable in India. However, it is a fact that the assessee had filed a return of income in India voluntarily offering

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD

Gains’. The Assessment order 19. In the assessment order dated 31st January 2001 under Section 143 (3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) noted that the compensation was indeed a capital income but held that it was nevertheless taxable under Section 55 (2) of the Act. The AO held that the extinguishment of these bundle of rights by termination