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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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)

46-50 Gain income Appeal Gain 2005-06 Capital Capital 143(1) No Capital 51-53 Gain Gain Gain Appeal 20006-07 Capital Business 143(3) Capital Capital 57-66 Gain Gain income Gain 2007-08 Capital Capital 143(3) No Capital 54-56 Gain Gain Gain appeal 2008-09 Capital Business 143(3) Capital Capital 67-75 Gain Gain

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

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

section 142A of the Income Tax Act, and as such the addition of Rs. 46,74,280/- on account of capital gain

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)

gain as per Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962 is required to be adopted, the said rate was 0.6252 and as such the computation made by the 37 assessee had been correctly adopted by it, appears to be just and proper. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the actual rate of conversion i.e. 0.6252 after verifying

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 gains as business income, without going into the facts of the relevant year and ignoring the CBDT’s circular. 3) That the CIT (Appeals)/AO has erred on facts and in law in increasing the disallowance u/s 14A by Rs 77,82,133, without factoring the assessee himself had disallowed Rs 24,38,508. 4) That both

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

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)

section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961. The said claim of long terms Capital gain of Re 63,01,425/- as exempt income has formed 8 Sachin Kanodia Vs. ITO the very basis for the selection of the case for scrutiny in CASS. The grounds being interrelated are disposed of together. 5.1.1 It was also noted by the AD that

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)

46 ITR 144 (SC) c) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries (SC) 358 ITR 0295 4.1.17 In view of above discussion, it is held that-the appellant has rightly computed long term capital gain as per mode of computation prescribed in section

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)

46 ITR 144 (SC) c) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excel Industries (SC) 358 ITR 0295 4.1.17 In view of above discussion, it is held that-the appellant has rightly computed long term capital gain as per mode of computation prescribed in section