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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 45(2A). It nowhere exceeds the mandate of section 45(2A) but only provides the clear cut scenario based clarification to elaborate on the provisions of section 45(2A). 7.13 In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the argument of the assessee and therefore, I uphold the addition on account of short term

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

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

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

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

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

47 enlists various exceptions and transactions which are not treated as transfer for the purpose of capital gain u/s. 45. The mode of computation to arrive at capital gain or loss has been enumerated from sections

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

47 enlists various exceptions and transactions which are not treated as transfer for the purpose of capital gain u/s. 45. The mode of computation to arrive at capital gain or loss has been enumerated from sections

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares of JSL at the rate

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD.

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares of JSL at the rate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares of JSL at the rate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares of JSL at the rate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

capital gain tax under Section 47(vii) of the Act. The AO adopting the value of shares of JSL at the rate

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

gains. Considering the said facts, the High Court held that the cashless exercise of option therefore was a transfer of capital asset by way of a relinquishment/ extinguishment of right in capital asset in terms of Section 2(47