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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain ought to have been deleted altogether. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in sustaining addition in respect of alleged income under the head house property from following properties: Sr. No. Property Amount (Rs.) i) B-13, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 34,268 ii) One House

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

Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

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

Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

DCIT, 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

Section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') defines the term "capital asset" to include property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include any stock-in-trade or personal assets subject to certain exceptions. As regards shares and other securities, the same can be held either

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

gains tax in her hands for the AYs in question. Section 45 (5) of the Act is relevant in the present case reads as under: “45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1), where the capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

gains tax in her hands for the AYs in question. Section 45 (5) of the Act is relevant in the present case reads as under: “45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1), where the capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains tax in her hands for the AYs in question. Section 45 (5) of the Act is relevant in the present case reads as under: “45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1), where the capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MS. SUMAN DHAMIJA

gains tax in her hands for the AYs in question. Section 45 (5) of the Act is relevant in the present case reads as under: “45 (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1), where the capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

GAIN OF SALE OF LAMP DIVSIION AS PER SECTION 50[2] Sale consideration received on transfer of lamp division at Sonepat ` 42,50,00,000/- WDV of lamp division ` 5,15,75,131/- Less: Value of land ` 17,93,417/- ` 4,97,81,714/- Add: Indexation of land: 1793417x351 100 `62,94,893/- `5,60,76,607/- Capital

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

5 to section 9(1)(i) of the Act, capital gain arising through or from the transfer of a capital

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

capital gains as an independent source is not exempt from tax automatically. The carry forward of LTCL is governed by the provisions of section 74 of the Act, wherein, there is no embargo provided in the said section with respect to subject mentioned transactions. Hence the LTCL on sale of equity shares and equity oriented mutual funds, per se, would

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

capital gains as an independent source is not exempt from tax automatically. The carry forward of LTCL is governed by the provisions of section 74 of the Act, wherein, there is no embargo provided in the said section with respect to subject mentioned transactions. Hence the LTCL on sale of equity shares and equity oriented mutual funds, per se, would

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 gain in light of holding period of 23 months, which is less than 36 months. 5. The assessee submitted her reply on 22/12/2016. She stated that provisions of section