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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

45 (2 A) read with section 2(42A) of the Act and further incorrectly applied Circular no. 768 dated 24.6.1998 to the facts of the case of the appellant and as such addition made and sustained is untenable. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having not disputed that the assessee held and owned

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

45 (2 A) read with section 2(42A) of the Act and further incorrectly applied Circular no. 768 dated 24.6.1998 to the facts of the case of the appellant and as such addition made and sustained is untenable. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having not disputed that the assessee held and owned

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

45 (2 A) read with section 2(42A) of the Act and further incorrectly applied Circular no. 768 dated 24.6.1998 to the facts of the case of the appellant and as such addition made and sustained is untenable. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having not disputed that the assessee held and owned

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

45 (2 A) read with section 2(42A) of the Act and further incorrectly applied Circular no. 768 dated 24.6.1998 to the facts of the case of the appellant and as such addition made and sustained is untenable. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having not disputed that the assessee held and owned

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

45 (2 A) read with section 2(42A) of the Act and further incorrectly applied Circular no. 768 dated 24.6.1998 to the facts of the case of the appellant and as such addition made and sustained is untenable. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having not disputed that the assessee held and owned

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

45 (2 A) read with section 2(42A) of the Act and further incorrectly applied Circular no. 768 dated 24.6.1998 to the facts of the case of the appellant and as such addition made and sustained is untenable. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) having not disputed that the assessee held and owned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

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

gains tax in her hands for the AYs in question. Section 45 (5) of the Act is relevant in the present case reads as under: “45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1), where the capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

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

gains tax in her hands for the AYs in question. Section 45 (5) of the Act is relevant in the present case reads as under: “45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1), where the capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains tax in her hands for the AYs in question. Section 45 (5) of the Act is relevant in the present case reads as under: “45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1), where the capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains tax in her hands for the AYs in question. Section 45 (5) of the Act is relevant in the present case reads as under: “45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1), where the capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 45 and 48 shall be applied. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to recomputed the capital gain in the light of observations made by the Tribunal after providing full opportunity to the assessee in accordance with law. 5

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

capital gains tax under section 45 of the I.T. Act, the interest received under section 28 of the Act of 1894 being an accretion to the value, would 8 form part of the compensation and would be exigible to tax under section 45(5

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

Section 45 and 48 shall be applied. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the AO to recomputed the capital gain in the light of observations made by the Tribunal after providing full opportunity to the assessee in accordance with law. 5

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

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 of shares of Dabur India Ltd., Punjab Tractors Ltd. and ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. Total Capital Gain Rs. Long Term Capital Gain claimed exempt u/s.10

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

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 of shares of Dabur India Ltd., Punjab Tractors Ltd. and ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. Total Capital Gain Rs. Long Term Capital Gain claimed exempt u/s.10

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

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 of shares of Dabur India Ltd., Punjab Tractors Ltd. and ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. Total Capital Gain Rs. Long Term Capital Gain claimed exempt u/s.10

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHARDA KOCHHAR

The appeal is disposed of,

capital gains”, in the previous year in which the transfer took place. At this stage, it may be noted, that, Section 45(1) stood further amended (w.e.f. 1-4-1991) so as to include reference to Section 54-H and Section 45(5

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

section 45 (4) do not apply to partner and applies to a firm. He submitted that Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs.43,49,47,500/- represent the capital gain arising on sum received by the assessee as partner on retirement from the partnership firm, though the same is exempt