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

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

B’ the assessee has disclosed sale consideration of 625000 shares sold on 19/6/2008 holding that same is a long-term capital gain and therefore exempt. He further referred to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 15/7/2011 issued for assessment year 2009 – 10. He further referred to the report of the investigation dated 6/6/2011 placed at page number

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Capital Hill Main Road Ranchi Sir, Sub: application for lease of area of 500 acres by m/s. Arcellormitallindian limited mining lease of iron and, manganese ore in West Singhbhum, Meghaburum Karampada RF) Ref: letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of director, mining, Jharkhand In reference to the above letter no. 737 dated 9.06.2009 of the Director Mining Jharkhand it is informed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

55(2) of the Act. The deduction permissible under Section 48 is the cost of acquisition of the capital asset transferred for consideration, whether or not it was a capital asset on the date of its acquisition. What is taxable under Section 45 are the "profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset" and the charge

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)

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that compensation of Rs.33,55,12,980 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 offered to tax by the appellant in the return

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. OPG SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd, Circle-19(1), Room No. 221, G-190, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaaco1081C (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 55(2)(ab) of the Act cannot be accepted. The additional evidence submitted by assessee in fact goes against him to the extent that the BSE letter dated 13.12.2010 has further clarified that under demutualization the membership rights was bifurcated into two components i.e. a) Ownership rights & b) Trading rights. In view of the facts narrated above, the submissions

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

B of the Income Tax Act 1922. One more fact distinguishing that case from the present one was that the consideration for the 99 year lease was salami and not the yearly rent. The capital gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

B of the Income Tax Act 1922. One more fact distinguishing that case from the present one was that the consideration for the 99 year lease was salami and not the yearly rent. The capital gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

B of the Income Tax Act 1922. One more fact distinguishing that case from the present one was that the consideration for the 99 year lease was salami and not the yearly rent. The capital gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

section 55(2)(1), cost inflation index was to be applied with effect from 1-4-1981 instead of the year of acquisition by the assessee. 46. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sushil Kumar: 231 Taxman 788 held that where capital asset was property of HUF prior to 1.4.1981 and assessee acquired absolute ownership

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

b) relief for deficiency of profits where the assessee makes profits in an Indian State but sustains a loss in India. As to the first matter, it has been fully dealt with by the High Court with reference to rule 2A of the Rules in Schedule II and it has been rightly pointed out that no difficulty really arises

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

b) relief for deficiency of profits where the assessee makes profits in an Indian State but sustains a loss in India. As to the first matter, it has been fully dealt with by the High Court with reference to rule 2A of the Rules in Schedule II and it has been rightly pointed out that no difficulty really arises

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HCL INFOSYSTEMS LTD

gains, if any, arising from the transfer of a capital asset, Section 48 provides that from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset, the following amounts have to be deducted: (a) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (b) the cost of acquisition