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

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

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

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

capital gain for commission. The methodology adopted involved three legs, namely, purchase of share by the beneficiary offline: to save on STT using the loopholes in section 10(38) of the Act which places restriction of trading by payment of STT on sale of shares and not on purchase; price rigging: after purchase of shares the syndicate members start rigging

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

Section 45 is that the\nproperty transferred must be a capital asset on the date of\ntransfer and that it is not necessary that it should have been\ncapital asset also on the date of its acquisition by the\nassessee. Thus this decision directly answers the question\nraised and concluded. This has been followed in a subsequent\ndecision reported

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section, for claiming the deduction on the\ncapital gains on the sale of the land, the first requirement is that capital gain\nshould arise from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years\nimmediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used\nby the assessee being an individual or his parent

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

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

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

capital were all non-residents on which provisions\nof section 56(2)(viib) were not applicable. In this regard, the Ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to\ni.\nii.\nProve that all these subscribers were non-resident with due reference to section\n6 of the Act and\nUpload the material placed before the AO based on which he gave relief

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

56) the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that section 54F of the Act, nowhere envisages that sale consideration obtained by the assessee from original capital asset is mandatorily required to be utilized for purposes of meeting cost of new asset. It was, therefore, held that where investment made by the assessee although not entirely sourced from capital gains

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

56) the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that section 54F of the Act, nowhere envisages that sale consideration obtained by the assessee from original capital asset is mandatorily required to be utilized for purposes of meeting cost of new asset. It was, therefore, held that where investment made by the assessee although not entirely sourced from capital gains

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

Section 56 (2) (viii) of the Act and the amount received being capital gains is exempt to tax as per Section

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

56-61 of paper book) 1.6 That on 26.06.2022 the learned Assessing officer passed final order u/s 143(3) rws 144C(13) of the Act assessing income at Rs. 33,60,600/-, making following additions: Sr.No. Particulars Amount in Rs. i) Short Term Capital Gain: Being capital gain on sale of 3,37,202/- office space in Project Digital Greens

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

56(Cal), the AO received\nInformation from Investigation Wing that the prices of some shares of penny\nstock companies which included the company X in which the assessee made\nInvestment, were artificially rigged to benefit shareholders through bogus\nclaim of long term capital gain. The assessee had purchased shares of the\ncompany for Rs.1 lakh and when the Investments