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

482 (Bom) followed by Narang Overseas (P.) Ltd 111 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (SB). Accordingly, he submitted when no capital gain accrues, then no tax is payable thereon. 47. The Ld. AR further submitted that it is the duty and power of this Court to take into consideration all the subsequent events in the interest of justice and placed reliance

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

482 (Bom) followed by Narang Overseas (P.) Ltd 111 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (SB). Accordingly, he submitted when no capital gain accrues, then no tax is payable thereon. 47. The Ld. AR further submitted that it is the duty and power of this Court to take into consideration all the subsequent events in the interest of justice and placed reliance

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

482 (Bom) followed by Narang Overseas (P.) Ltd 111 ITD 1 (Mumbai) (SB). Accordingly, he submitted when no capital gain accrues, then no tax is payable thereon. 47. The Ld. AR further submitted that it is the duty and power of this Court to take into consideration all the subsequent events in the interest of justice and placed reliance

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The details of the same are as under : “Capital gains Long term capital gains Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd., (Exempt u/s.10(38) Full Consideration Rs.15,26,38,102/- Less: Cost of Acquisition Rs. 2,33,97,620/- LTCG (Exempt u/s.10(38)) claimed Rs.12,92,40,482

ITO, WARD- 28(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHIVANI GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The details of the same are as under : “Capital gains Long term capital gains Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd., (Exempt u/s.10(38) Full Consideration Rs.15,26,38,102/- Less: Cost of Acquisition Rs. 2,33,97,620/- LTCG (Exempt u/s.10(38)) claimed Rs.12,92,40,482

GOVIND SINGH GREWAL ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 61(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Govind Singh Grewal, Vs Ito, 8-A, Panchsheel Marg, Ward-61(1), Chanakya Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aghpg7795D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2021 Order

482/-. The AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, noted that the assessee has sold the commercial property bearing shop No.DCT-112 on first floor, having covered area of 123.800 sq. mtrs. in the multi-storied building known as DLF City Court vide sale deed dated 21.09.2012 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,00,000/- and shown capital gain

ACIT, CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INVEST CORP., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

482 and 483 of 2019 and 902 and 903 of 2019 and the High Court vide order dated 10th March 2025 dismissed the appeal of Revenue on the ground of consistency after judicially noticing that since 2002 to 2023 the option price is sale of shares. 9. In Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2016-17, as stated hereinabove

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

482 and 483 of 2019 and 902 and 903 of 2019 and the High Court vide order dated 10th March 2025 dismissed the appeal of Revenue on the ground of consistency after judicially noticing that since 2002 to 2023 the option price is sale of shares. 9. In Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2016-17, as stated hereinabove

AJAY GULIYA

capital gains are chargeable in the year of transfer as they are deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer takes place. Section 48 regarding “mode of computation” is the machinery provision and the computation under it starts with ascertainment of the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, GURGAON vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain and Rs. 39,96,76,340/- made in the assessment order and confirmed by the first appellate authority do not stand to the test of law and are not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and hence we delete the above said both the additions and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee

ORIENT CRAFT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain and Rs. 39,96,76,340/- made in the assessment order and confirmed by the first appellate authority do not stand to the test of law and are not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and hence we delete the above said both the additions and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains at all has accrued as no transfer has taken place within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act has taken place. In support of the above submissions reliance has placed on the following decisions by the appellant: 6. C. S. Atwal vs. CIT Ludhiana & Another (2015) 59 Taxman.com 359 (P & H) : There

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains at all has accrued as no transfer has taken place within the meaning of section 2(47)(v) of the Act has taken place. In support of the above submissions reliance has placed on the following decisions by the appellant: 6. C. S. Atwal vs. CIT Ludhiana & Another (2015) 59 Taxman.com 359 (P & H) : There

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

482) Income from Capital Gain Short Term Capital Gain 64,46,187 Income from Other Sources 1,68,98,037 50,90,742 Less : Brought forward unabsorbed depreciation 14,22,71,036 Gross Total Loss (13,71,80,294) From the above table, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 10B without considering the brought forward

RITU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

482/-. The closing value of investment was Rs. 8,44,05,861/-. These facts are available at pages 55 and 56 of the paper book. 18. It can be seen that during the F.Y. 2014-15, the assessee has earned short term capital gain of Rs. 79.72 lakhs and long term capital gain of Rs. 6.22 crores. However, the Assessing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

482 (Delhi) by holding that “Even when as assessee becomes entitled to an undefined and undivided share in a property, though an agreement, which he later relinquishes, the gain has to be assessed as income from capital gain, and not as income from other sources.” The appellant has also cited the following decisions, wherein it was held that right

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

482 (Delhi) by holding that “Even when as assessee becomes entitled to an undefined and undivided share in a property, though an agreement, which he later relinquishes, the gain has to be assessed as income from capital gain, and not as income from other sources.” The appellant has also cited the following decisions, wherein it was held that right

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

482 (Delhi) by holding that “Even when as assessee becomes entitled to an undefined and undivided share in a property, though an agreement, which he later relinquishes, the gain has to be assessed as income from capital gain, and not as income from other sources.” The appellant has also cited the following decisions, wherein it was held that right

KAUSHAL INFRAPROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

482 (Delhi) by holding that “Even when as assessee becomes entitled to an undefined and undivided share in a property, though an agreement, which he later relinquishes, the gain has to be assessed as income from capital gain, and not as income from other sources.” The appellant has also cited the following decisions, wherein it was held that right