CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

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

Section 50B of the Act which is reproduced as under:- “50B. Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of slump sale- (1

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

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

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

CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri P. Maharishi & Vs Continental Construction Acit, Ltd, 28, Nehru Place, Circle – 3(1), New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. Building, (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) & Vs Acit, Continental Construction Ltd, Circle – 3(1), 28, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110019. Room No.390, C.R. (Pan: Aaacc 2309 R) Building, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Subodh Gupta, Fca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing 14.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 23.09.2020

50B. The Assessing Officer treated a part of the said receipt as business income and a part as short term capital gains u/s 50 of the Act. Further, the returned total income included a sum of Rs. 8,21,49,466/- on account of interest accrued on sums receivables from Iraq in terms of deferred payment agreement between Govt

SHRI BALAJI INDUSTRIES COMPLEX,BADAUN vs. CIT, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Balaji Industries Complex, Cit, Ismailpur, Moradabad-244001 Vs Badaun. (Pan: Abefs3007Q) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Department By: Smt. Meeta Singh C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2018

Gain after taking the value of full consideration of the building u/s 50C of IT Act at Rs. 2,40,39,000/-.” 2.1 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax), the assessee has now approached the ITAT challenging the revisionary proceedings and has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 3 Assessment year 2009-10 “1

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURUGRAM, HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains accruing to the\nassessee had to be considered as flowing from the slump sale as\nper section 50B of the Act. The revaluation of ABTL's investment in\nIndus at Rs.7330,75,56,000/- as on 31-3-2010 which was\napparently because of the transfer of PIAs from the assessee to\nIndus was treated as the full consideration

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI, CR BUILDING vs. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, GURGRAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

gains accruing to the\nassessee had to be considered as flowing from the slump sale as\nper section 50B of the Act. The revaluation of ABTL's investment in\nIndus at Rs.7330,75,56,000/- as on 31-3-2010 which was\napparently because of the transfer of PIAs from the assessee to\nIndus was treated as the full consideration

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD.

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

1) of the ITA 12/2003 Page 11 of 28 Act was inapplicable. The Tribunal also noticed the provisions of Section 50B of the Act - which were introduced in the Act with effect from 1st April, 2000 by virtue of the Finance Act, 1999 - and held that since Section 50B of the Act was introduced after AY 1997-98, the said

TOSCANA LASTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Toscana Lasts Ltd., Vs. Ito, (Since Amalgamated With Avantha Ward 16(3), Reality Ltd.), Thapar House, New Delhi. 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaact3805H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Ito, Vs. Toscana Lasts Ltd., Ward 16(3), (Since Amalgamated With New Delhi. Avantha Reality Ltd.), Thapar House, 124-Janpath, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaact3805H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section SOB (3) relating to computation of Capital Gains in case of Slump Sale returned Capital gains ujs SOB at Rs.41,50,SOOj-. In the course of Assessment proceedings the appellant company revised the computation of Capital Gain which is as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Sale Consideration 4,18,07,6611- Less:- Net worth of the undertaking WDV of Fixed

M/S. VIRTUAL SOFTWARE & TRAINING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -17(4), M/S. Virtual Software & Training Pvt. Ltd., N-136, Panchsheel New Delhi Park, New Delhi Pan : Aaacv8390F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. L.K. Paonam, Ar; K.R. Shukla, Adv.; & Bhupendra Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 26/03/2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2001-02 Raising Various Grounds. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/09/2015, Which Were Admitted. The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

section 50B(3) as referred to above. This has to be done after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and as per law”. The Hon'ble ITAT have directed the A.O. to work out the capital gain in this case as per law. The A.O. was therefore, within the mandate of directions by the Hon’ble ITAT

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gain arising out of transfer of healthcare business of slump sale basis to capital tax u/s 50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gain arising out of transfer of healthcare business of slump sale basis to capital tax u/s 50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gain arising out of transfer of healthcare business of slump sale basis to capital tax u/s 50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAX HEALTHCARE INSTITUTE LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Hon‟Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gain arising out of transfer of healthcare business of slump sale basis to capital tax u/s 50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1

M/S. DOON VALLEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ACIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Capital Gain (LTCG) after detection by the Department and the assessee failedto furnish true particulars, upheld the levy of penalty and dismissed the appeal. 6. Assessee is, therefore, before us in this appeal contending in the grounds of appeal thatthe authorities are not clear while recording penalty being imposed on concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

INDUS TOWERS LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

capital asset becomes a property of a person under a gift, cost to the previous owner is to be considered. The same is provided in Explanation 2 to section 43(1) of the Act. The learned AR before us filed his rebuttal to the various allegations leveled by the learned AO and learned CIT(A) in tabular form which

ACIT , CIRCLE 10, NEW DELHI vs. INDUS TOWER LIMITED, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

capital asset becomes a property of a person under a gift, cost to the previous owner is to be considered. The same is provided in Explanation 2 to section 43(1) of the Act. The learned AR before us filed his rebuttal to the various allegations leveled by the learned AO and learned CIT(A) in tabular form which