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

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 50B (1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 50B (1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 50B (1) profits or gains arising from a slump sale would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 17 of 32 term capital assets and which shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which

ROHIT SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain shall not be charged under section 4A: (b) if the cost of the long-term specified asset is less

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

capital gains on the shares which were\nacquired in 2008 and sold in 2011, which is much before 1 April 2017, is\nunsustainable and bad in law.\nV. The Assessee is not a resident of India as its control &\nmanagement is not situated wholly in India:\na. Residential status of an assessee is required to be determined\nevery year

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Capital Gain declared by the assessee was arranged transactions. The operative part of the Tribunal order is as under: 9.5. From the above, it is clear that Mr. Mukesh Choksi is double 'speaking in his statements i.e. one given before the A.O. and the one during cross examination before the A.O. Under these circumstances one has to see the evidentiary

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Capital Gain declared by the assessee was arranged transactions. The operative part of the Tribunal order is as under: 9.5. From the above, it is clear that Mr. Mukesh Choksi is double 'speaking in his statements i.e. one given before the A.O. and the one during cross examination before the A.O. Under these circumstances one has to see the evidentiary

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

4A) of section 132 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in drawing presumption against the assessee and had made addition of ` 9 lakhs in his income under section 68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he 2012:DHC:5366-DB ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

4A) of section 132 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was justified in drawing presumption against the assessee and had made addition of ` 9 lakhs in his income under section 68 of the Act. The onus was upon the assessee to have produced cogent material to rebut the aforesaid presumption which he 2012:DHC:5366-DB ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008

HAREON SOLAR SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT INT. TAXATION CIRCLE-2(1)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

4A or paragraph 4C of Article\n13 of this Agreement, as the case may be.' As we have already observed in\npreceding paragraph that the assessee company( assessee being 100% subsidiary\nof Hareon Solar Company Limited, Hongkong) is interposed/incorporated in\nSingapore by its ultimate Chinese Holding Company(Hareon Solar Technology\nCompany Limited, China) through its 100% subsidiary in Hongkong(Hareon

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. SUNAERO LTD.

gains tax under Section 47(v) of the Act. 4A. Section 47(v) of the Act reads as under:- 2012:DHC:3789-DB ITA 562/2008 Page 3 of 38 “47. Transactions not regarded as transfer.—Nothing contained in Section 45 shall apply to the following transfers:— xxxx (v) any transfer of a capital

Commissioner of Income Tax

gains tax under Section 47(v) of the Act. 4A. Section 47(v) of the Act reads as under:- 2012:DHC:3789-DB ITA 562/2008 Page 3 of 38 “47. Transactions not regarded as transfer.—Nothing contained in Section 45 shall apply to the following transfers:— xxxx (v) any transfer of a capital

THE GOLDEN STATE CAPITAL PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshthe Golden State Capital Pte Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 31, Tanglin Road, #03,-04, St. Circle-3(1)(1), Regis Residences, Singapore, International Taxation, Singapore, Singapore, 247912 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagct8026Q Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Shri Anmol, Adv Shri Priya, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2023

4A) of the DTAA to the Appellant qua capital gains earned by the Appellant on transfer of shares of DHFPL in complete disregard to the fact that the investments in DFHPL were made by the Appellant in 2016 and income arising on transfer thereof were specifically exempt from the purview of General Anti- Avoidance The Golden State Capital

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

4A of Article 13 of this Agreement, for each of the 12-month periods in the immediately preceding period of 24 months from the date on which the gains arise; (ii) in the case of paragraph 4C of Article 13 of this Agreement, for the immediately preceding period of 12 months from the date on which the gains arise

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

4A) and section 292C of the Act says that documents found during the course of search are true applicable both to assessee as well as revenue. If the AO wants to dispute that it is not correct burden is on the revenue. iv. Profitability statement reconciliation is not at all doubted by the ld AO but rejected only

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

4A) and section 292C of the Act says that documents found during the course of search are true applicable both to assessee as well as revenue. If the AO wants to dispute that it is not correct burden is on the revenue. iv. Profitability statement reconciliation is not at all doubted by the ld AO but rejected only

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

4A) and section 292C of the Act says that documents found during the course of search are true applicable both to assessee as well as revenue. If the AO wants to dispute that it is not correct burden is on the revenue. iv. Profitability statement reconciliation is not at all doubted by the ld AO but rejected only

GD FOODS MANUFACTURING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 26, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Chary

4A) and section 292C of the Act says that documents found during the course of search are true applicable both to assessee as well as revenue. If the AO wants to dispute that it is not correct burden is on the revenue. iv. Profitability statement reconciliation is not at all doubted by the ld AO but rejected only