JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-10, NEW DELHI vs. BHANU CHOPRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryjt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Sh. Bhanu Chopra, Tax,Special Range-10, M-140, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Agwpc5625R (Appellant) (Respondent)

55(2)(aa)(iiia) of the IT Act which provides that for the purposes of section 48 and 49, the cost of acquisition in relation to the financial asset allotted to the assessee without any payment and on the basis of holding of any other financial asset (i.e. Bonus‟ shares etc), shall be taken to be Nil. Hence, specific provision

ACIT CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI vs. KUL PRAKASH CHANDOK , DELHI

In the result, we do not\nfind any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby\ndismissed

gain by sale of shares and mutual fund, thereby claiming\nlosses of Rs. 12,98,89,810/- and Rs. 20,57,12,795/-. The AO found that the\nassessee has sold only the original shares and not the bonus shares\nreceived by him. Invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act .\nThe AO computed the addition

DCIT CIRCLE - 16(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARUNA CHANDHOK, NEW DELHI

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Vs. Smt Aruna Chandhok, Circle-16(1), H-30, Sainik Farms, New Delhi Delhi-110062 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaepc7861R

55(2)(aa)(i) with respect to issuance of bonus shares to the transactions referred in section 56(2) of the Act. The AO himself accepted on page 35 of the Assessment Order that the overall wealth of a person post bonus or pre-bonus remains the same. The AO incorrectly ignored the fact that an assessee "receives" no additional

INDU BALA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 60(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in rejecting the Contention of the appellant that adequate opportunity of being heard was not provided by the ld. AO. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the decision of the assessing officer of treating the long term capital gain as short term

YOGESH PATEL,USA vs. DCIT CIRCLE INT TAXATION 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as directed above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Yogesh Patel, Vs Dcit, 37319, Fowler Street New Ark Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(2), California, New Delhi. Usa 94560. Pan: Arppp4747H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2023 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle International Taxation 2(2)(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao), For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Applicant Is Non-Resident Indian Settled In Usa & Is Us Tax Resident. During The Previous Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Reference, The Applicant Sold Ancestral Land Bearing S No14 Hissa, No 7 Pt, Village Goregaon, Tal Borivli, Mumbai Suburban Dist On December 11, 2019 & Disclosed Long Term Capital Gains Computed As Under:- Amt In Rs Sale Consideration - 18,56,87,500 Less: Deduction U/S 48 - 13,56,87,500 Net Sale Consideration (I) 5,00,00,000 Acquisition Cost Fair Market Value On 01-04-2001 Rs 10,400/- X 3647.80 Sq M 3,79,37,120 Less: 60% Reduction In Fmv Due To Encroachment 2,27,62,272 1,51,74,848 Indexed Cost 1,51,74,848 X [289/100] 4,38,55,311 Cost Of Acquisition (Ii) 4,38,55,311 Long Term Capital Gains: (I) - (Ii) 61,44,689

55,311/- 4 Long term capital gain Rs.14,18,32,189/- 5 Long term capital gain declared in ITR 61,44,689/- 6 Addition 13,56,87,500/- 6.1 The DRP decided the objections with following findings in para 5.3 and 5.4 as follows: 5.3 Regarding the expenses to tune of Rs. 13,56,87,500/-, assessee has only furnished

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INFRASOFT LTD

capital gains in the other country. 2013:DHC:6018 ======================================================================= ITA 1034/2009 Page 71 of 174 48. The Supreme Court further referred to the commentary of Klaus Vogel that Double Taxation Convention establishes an independent mechanism to avoid double taxation through restriction of tax claims in areas where overlapping tax claims are expected, or at least theoretically possible. In other words

SRF LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

AA- Rated Company was 10.83%. According to the TPO, since the subsidiary company was a loss making company, the annualized average yield should be the average for the companies with credit rating of BBB+, BBB- & BBB which works out to 14.29%. According to the TPO, the markup that should have been charged by the assessee from its AEs should

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

2. Interest subsidy under Technology Upgradation Fund (TUF) Scheme: 23. During the year, Assessee had obtained loan of Rs. 6,250 Lacs from SBI and Rs. 3,500 Lacs from State Bank of Mysore under TUF Scheme issued by the ministry of textile, Government of India. Whether the Loan was utilized as per the scheme is not under question. Under

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

2. Interest subsidy under Technology Upgradation Fund (TUF) Scheme: 23. During the year, Assessee had obtained loan of Rs. 6,250 Lacs from SBI and Rs. 3,500 Lacs from State Bank of Mysore under TUF Scheme issued by the ministry of textile, Government of India. Whether the Loan was utilized as per the scheme is not under question. Under

DCIT, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI vs. MS BHARTI TELEMEDIA LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

aa) "industrial undertaking" means any undertaking which is engaged in- (i) the manufacture or processing of goods; or (ii) the manufacture of computer software; or (iii) the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; or (iiia) the business of providing telecommunication services, whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service, network

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

aa) "industrial undertaking" means any undertaking which is engaged in- (i) the manufacture or processing of goods; or (ii) the manufacture of computer software; or (iii) the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; or (iiia) the business of providing telecommunication services, whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service, network

BHARTI TELEMEDIA LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

aa) "industrial undertaking" means any undertaking which is engaged in- (i) the manufacture or processing of goods; or (ii) the manufacture of computer software; or (iii) the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power; or (iiia) the business of providing telecommunication services, whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service, network