ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

57,84 21,45,60 22,70,96 19,21,58 loss 9 1 1 5 2 0 Percentag 98.34% 0.70% 0.16% 017% 0.18% 0.15% e of Capital gain to Total capital gain *inclusive of shares of Dabur India Ltd., Punjab Tractors Ltd. and ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. Total Capital Rs. Long Term Capital Gain claimed exempt

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

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains of Rs 19,59,57,813/- after claiming deductions u/s\n54B for Rs 78,54,42,491/- and 54EC for Rs 50,00,000/-\nIn net effect the appellant claimed deduction of Rs 41,71,72,652/- under\nsection 54B after purchasing three properties from Ms. Latika Dutt, Ms.\nCharu Dutt and Sh. Mafresh Aggarwal. The Ld. Assessing

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

capital gains taxation by the AO\n6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of\nthe existing arrangement\nPara 11 (page 24-27) ECL\nPara 11 (page 23-25) ECOM\n6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom\nBusiness from Onshore to offshore\nPara 12 (page 27-33) ECL\nPara 12 (page 26-31) ECOM\n6.3 Acquisition

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

57,70,000/- claimed for that unit is allowable deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 5.2 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer

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

57,70,000/- claimed for that unit is allowable deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 5.2 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not allowing depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant. 6. That the assessing officer

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

57,70,000/- claimed for\nthat unit is allowable deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act.\n5.2 Without prejudice, the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not\nallowing depreciation under section 32 or deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of\nthe Act on capital expenditure incurred by the appellant.\n6. That the assessing officer

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains in the assessment of Mani Kakkar should also be held to be correct as also the consequential addition of undisclosed brokerage. However, in deference to the arguments of Mr. Anoop Sharma, learned counsel for Mani Kakkar, we proceed to examine them. 57. It was contended that there was no material or evidence, except the sale deeds, found during

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds appeal either before or during the course of hearing appeal. Synopsis 3. The representatives of both the sides were heard at length, the case records carefully perused and we have duly considered the documentary evidences brought on record

ACIT, CIRCLE-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. DABUR INVEST CORP., DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

57. It is also stated by the learned CIT – A that the joint- venture agreement is merely a financial agreement where Dabur confers exclusive rights upon CUIH for purchase of its shares. Thus it is only an agreement when CUIH guarantees payment of 20% as option price to Dabur by 31st January every year in return for exclusive right

DABUR INVEST CORP,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-46, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Acit, Dabur Invest Corp., 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Circle-46(1), Room No.106, Vs. Drum Shape Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dabur Invest Corp., Jcit, 4Th Floor, Punjab Bhawan, Vs. Range-46, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aadfd2529D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

57. It is also stated by the learned CIT – A that the joint- venture agreement is merely a financial agreement where Dabur confers exclusive rights upon CUIH for purchase of its shares. Thus it is only an agreement when CUIH guarantees payment of 20% as option price to Dabur by 31st January every year in return for exclusive right

INCOME TAX vs. LIMITED

The appeal is dismissed

capital gains. A bare reading of the provision of sub- section (2) of Section 50 of the Act would show that, the very fact that, there is a reference to, in arriving at the cost of acquisition, to the written down value of the „block of assets‟ at the beginning of the previous year as increased by actual cost

CHANDER KALAN,DELHI vs. NEAC, DELHI

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

57 (iv) allows deduction of 50% of such income without any proof of such expenditure. The provisions of the sections were introduced to remove an anamoly. At that time the existing provisions of the income tax provided that the income chargeable Under that profits and gains of business or profession or income from other sources shall be computed in accordance

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

gain arising from conversion of capital asset into stock in trade as per section 45(2) of the Ac 1961.” ITA No. 4971/Del/2015 : A.Y. 2011-12 (Assessee Appeal) 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred