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

49,508 iv) Short-term capital gain u/s 111A 1,85,41,338 v) Short-term capital gain Others 29,95,242 Profit and gains of Business or profession Trading in mutual funds 3,60,77,965 Income from other sources Dividend income 8,19,14,172 5. The Assessing Officer to understand the different nature of transaction undertaken

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

49,508 iv) Short-term capital gain u/s 111A 1,85,41,338 v) Short-term capital gain Others 29,95,242 Profit and gains of Business or profession Trading in mutual funds 3,60,77,965 Income from other sources Dividend income 8,19,14,172 5. The Assessing Officer to understand the different nature of transaction undertaken

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

gains”. The said 2012:DHC:983-DB ITA No.116/2011 Page 11 of 15 Explanation provides as under:- “[Explanation1].— (i) In determining the period for which any capital asset is held by the assessee— (a) …… (b) in the case of a capital asset which becomes the property of the assessee in the circumstances mentioned in [sub-section(1) ] of section 49

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

gains”. The said 2012:DHC:983-DB ITA No.116/2011 Page 11 of 15 Explanation provides as under:- “[Explanation1].— (i) In determining the period for which any capital asset is held by the assessee— (a) …… (b) in the case of a capital asset which becomes the property of the assessee in the circumstances mentioned in [sub-section(1) ] of section 49

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)

section 2 (42A) of the act. Therefore, AO treated shares of Scorpio beverages P Ltd as short-term capital asset and computed the short-term capital gain accordingly. Assessee submitted before the assessing officer that she has borrowed loan for making investment in the shares of Scorpio beverages private limited. Interest of INR 37317628/– has been incurred as expenses during

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

49. As early as on March 30, 1994, the CBDT had issued circular no.682 in which it had been emphasized that any resident of Mauritius deriving income from alienation of shares of an Indian company would be liable to capital gains tax only in Mauritius as per Mauritius tax law and would not have any capital gains tax liability

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

49,07,806/- was taxable as short term capital gains nand Section 50(2) of the Act was not applicable

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

49,07,806/- was taxable as short term capital gains nand Section 50(2) of the Act was not applicable

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

49,07,806/- was taxable as short term capital gains nand Section 50(2) of the Act was not applicable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

49,07,806/- was taxable as short term capital gains nand Section 50(2) of the Act was not applicable

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

capital gain as claimed by the assessee. The price for the shares is what the parties have fixed to be paid as per the agreement and there cannot be any stipulation by the revenue that the price should be the same in both the years nor can they take different stands in the case of different shareholders relating

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

49,47,500/- (sales consideration of Rs. 53,20,00,000 -cost of share in partnership firm of Rs. 9,70,52,500) representing the alleged capital gain arising on sum received by the assessee as partner on retirement from the partnership firm though the same is exempt under section

MDLR ESTATES PVT. 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

49,47,500/- (sales consideration of Rs. 53,20,00,000 -cost of share in partnership firm of Rs. 9,70,52,500) representing the alleged capital gain arising on sum received by the assessee as partner on retirement from the partnership firm though the same is exempt under section

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain then exemption cannot be denied u/s 54F on the ground that complete construction could not be done or possession of new house not granted to assessee in view of the applicability of rule of liberal construction on interpretation of provisions of section 54F & in view of ground reality that construction by builders takes unusually longer time

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)

Section 144C of the Income Tax Act thereby proposing to make following variation to the return income of the assessee:- Particulars Amount (in Rs.) as Amount (in Rs.) as per revised return assessed of income A Business Income Income from -1,27,500 1,27,500 6 various projects as per return of income Add: Income from

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. AJAY KAILA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh.

49,53,675/- pm account of disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54EC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] that the assessee can claim only Rs. 50 lakhs deduction u/s 54EC.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has sold agricultural land situated at Gurgaon

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:

capital gains at the time of amalgamation and subsequent demerger in the present case. Thus, the shares of BIL received by the assessee from KCTBL at the time of tax neutral demerger was also exempt from tax and the said transaction was not considered as ‘transfer’. 33. It is submitted that section 49