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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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 2 (42A) of the act. Therefore, AO treated shares of Scorpio beverages P Ltd as short-term capital asset and computed the short-term capital gain accordingly. Assessee submitted before the assessing officer that she has borrowed loan for making investment in the shares of Scorpio beverages private limited. Interest of INR 37317628/– has been incurred as expenses during

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 :-

58,000) Disallowance u/s 14A (2,51,427) Loss on sale of assets (1,34,838) Donation (3,00,000) Sub Total 7,44,265 Total Expenses claimed 86,04,017.13 The AO disallowed the above expenses for the reason that the above expenditures are not allowed to be claimed under the head Capital Gains

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)

capital gain referred in para 3.2 to 3.5. 5. That the learned AO has erroneously stated that the reasons mentioned in the order may be treated as satisfactory for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particular of income with respect to the additions made. 6. That

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)

capital gains taxation by the AO 6.1 Broad view of Essar Group Company forming part of Para 11 (page 24-27) ECL the existing arrangement Para 11 (page 23-25) ECOM 6.2 Moving of holding Essar Group in Indian Telecom Para 12 (page 27-33) ECL Business from Onshore to offshore Para 12 (page 26-31) ECOM 6.3 Acquisition

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

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 u/s. 10(38) 1,06,78,21,147 Long Term Capital Gain

CIT vs. M/S TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 45 of the Act. 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 27 of 32 51. The ITAT has itself observed that the mere fact that the land and building may not have been used by the lessee or that after expiry of the lease the plant and machinery would have very little value

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 45 of the Act. 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 27 of 32 51. The ITAT has itself observed that the mere fact that the land and building may not have been used by the lessee or that after expiry of the lease the plant and machinery would have very little value

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Section 45 of the Act. 2015:DHC:8039-DB ITA Nos. 38 of 2002 & 132 of 2002 Page 27 of 32 51. The ITAT has itself observed that the mere fact that the land and building may not have been used by the lessee or that after expiry of the lease the plant and machinery would have very little value

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

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

section 68 or not. In the case of NR Portfolio, it was held that the genuineness and credibility are deeper and obtrusive. Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., wherein

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S. I. K. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD

58,00,000 x (497/426) 1,10,17,241 67,66,667 1,88,00,429 Long-term Capital Gain 2,83,99,571 6. It may be seen from the computation that the assessee computed the capital gains on the sale of land as long term capital gains and having invested the gains in REC Bonds which were eligible

M/S. EASTMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and that of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

58,662 incurred by the appellant on winding up of its subsidiary in Dubai in the relevant assessment year. (b) Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) has not given its comments on the facts that if the loss is not allowed as long term capital loss, then the same be treated as trading loss of the appellant

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. ARJUN PURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.2310/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

gains and not business income.” 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that assessee purchased the land in his own name which is proved by purchase deed executed in his favour. There were no material available on record to show that land was acquired as stock in trade