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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain. He extensively referred to the order of the learned CIT – A and ld AO to support his claim. He further referred to the provisions of section 55

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain. He extensively referred to the order of the learned CIT – A and ld AO to support his claim. He further referred to the provisions of section 55

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain. He extensively referred to the order of the learned CIT – A and ld AO to support his claim. He further referred to the provisions of section 55

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain. He extensively referred to the order of the learned CIT – A and ld AO to support his claim. He further referred to the provisions of section 55

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain. He extensively referred to the order of the learned CIT – A and ld AO to support his claim. He further referred to the provisions of section 55

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain. He extensively referred to the order of the learned CIT – A and ld AO to support his claim. He further referred to the provisions of section 55

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 asset if it is held for not more than thirty-six months. However, in the case of share of an unlisted company or a unit of a Mutual Fund specified under clause (23D) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, which is transferred during the period beginning on 1st April, 2014 and ending on 10th July

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 gain or loss has been enumerated from sections 48 to 55. Further sub-section (3) of section 70 and section

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 gain or loss has been enumerated from sections 48 to 55. Further sub-section (3) of section 70 and section

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

section 119 are wide enough to accommodate such a circular.” 43. Paragraphs 97 and 98 of the decision in the case of Vodafone International Holding B.V. v. Union of India (supra) which also clearly uphold Circular No.789 and the conclusivity of the TRC are also usefully quoted as under: “97 We are, therefore, of the view that in the absence

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

55,12,980 received by the appellant from Thymelicus Holding B.V [shareholder of Cinepolis India Pvt Ltd. ('CIPL')] is taxable as 'salary' under section 17 of the Act, as against long-term capital gains

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

55 ITR 17(SC) v) S G Mercantile Corporation Vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC) 8. In the present case there is no dispute that the shares were held by the assessee as long term capital asset and hence the same should taxed only under the head ‘capital gain’ as offered by the assessee. However, only because

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

section 143 (1) of the 2 Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 28.12.2004. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, ld. AR for the assessee attended from time to time and submitted relevant information as called

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

Gains in respect of mutual fund under the fixed maturity plans; c. That the Long Capital loss of Rs.55,64.762 should also been treated as capital loss entitled offset with the long-term income and that it cannot be treated as income from business. 2. That Both CIT(A) and AO has erred in notionally disallowing expenses u/s 14A read

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

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)

55. The lower authorities have denied treaty benefits to the Assessee on the basis that the Assessee was nothing but a shell company which had been used as a conduit with the sole objective of avoidance of tax on capital gain that arose on sale of VEL shares. 56. The lower authorities have failed to appreciate that the principal purpose

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

55 ITR 400 (All) 11) CIT Vs. Kunamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Ker) 16. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that there is no estoppel against statue and mere declaration of capital gain in the return cannot be a ground to make addition on account of short term capital gain :- 1. CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills

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

55 ITR 400 (All) 11) CIT Vs. Kunamkulam Mill Board 257 ITR 544 (Ker) 16. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that there is no estoppel against statue and mere declaration of capital gain in the return cannot be a ground to make addition on account of short term capital gain :- 1. CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills