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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section

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)

section 56 is not applicable to items covered in part A to E in chapter 4 of the Act and as such excludes income in the nature of „capital gains

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

56,25,157/- from which Indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.3,71,48,678/- has been deducted to arrive at Long term capital gain of Rs.11,84,76,479/-. It is held that the appellant has rightly computed long term capital gain as per mode of computation prescribed in section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

56,25,157/- from which Indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.3,71,48,678/- has been deducted to arrive at Long term capital gain of Rs.11,84,76,479/-. It is held that the appellant has rightly computed long term capital gain as per mode of computation prescribed in section

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

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 56 is not applicable on the assessee. The Assessing Officer has in any case has erred in not giving set off of long- term capital loss of Rs. 18,93,13,933/- . The Assessing Officer has not given any opportunity of being heard before re-computing the capital gain

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)

56,34,887 equity shares in Vodafone Essar Ltd (‘VEL’)(Initially known as Hutchison Max Telecom Private Limited (‘HMTL’) subsequently known as Hutchison Essar Limited (‘HEL’) and now VEL), an Indian company, constituting 15.85% of the ordinary share capital of VEL. Pursuant to the approval obtained by ETIL on 11 December 2006 from Foreign Investment Promotion Board (‘FIPB’), the Assessee

SURESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

56,22,799/– and claimed exempt income of ₹ 38,66,678/– under section 10 (38) of the act and the same has not been offered for taxation for the year under consideration. Accordingly, he concluded that assessee has not disclosed long-term capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MONI KUMAR SUBBA, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

56 DTR 255, wherein the security deposit which was reflected as lease premium, was taken as sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains. 5.14 In the rejoinder, the Ld. counsel distinguished the decision of the RK Palshikar (supra) and submitted that in the said case lease was for 99 years. 5.15 We have heard the rival submissions

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

56 DTR 255, wherein the security deposit which was reflected as lease premium, was taken as sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains. 5.14 In the rejoinder, the Ld. counsel distinguished the decision of the RK Palshikar (supra) and submitted that in the said case lease was for 99 years. 5.15 We have heard the rival submissions

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain was less than the cost of the new property. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on this ground was deleted. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal applied the first and second provisos to Section 56

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset. 49. In CIT v. Narang Diary (supra), the issue concerned the interpretation of the words "otherwise transferred" in Section 33 of the Act. The context was the provision of rebate in respect of a new machinery and plant

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

gain was charged with reference to the salami. Here again, no dispute was raised that the land itself constituted a capital asset. 49. In CIT v. Narang Diary (supra), the issue concerned the interpretation of the words "otherwise transferred" in Section 33 of the Act. The context was the provision of rebate in respect of a new machinery and plant