MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: Provided that in case the aforesaid arrangement involves a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, the amount of profits from such transaction shall be determined having regard

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in upholding the action of the AO in law in treating the short-term capital gain of Rss.67,87,654/- as the business income of the appellant and has totally disregarded the rule of consistency, without there being any charge in the working of the assessee and despite

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

capital gains not taxable in India.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "13(4)", "6(3)", "13(3A)", "13(36)", "250", "90(2)", "90(4)", "90(5)", "Article

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

3) of section 70 and section 71 provides for set off of loss in respect of capital gain. 8. From the conjoint reading and plain understanding of all these sections it can be seen that, firstly, shares in the company are treated as capital asset and no ITA No. 1212 & 1213/Del/2017 Mr. Tarun Sawhney exception has been carved

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

3) of section 70 and section 71 provides for set off of loss in respect of capital gain. 8. From the conjoint reading and plain understanding of all these sections it can be seen that, firstly, shares in the company are treated as capital asset and no ITA No. 1212 & 1213/Del/2017 Mr. Tarun Sawhney exception has been carved

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)

section 28(iv) of the Act as 'profits and gains of business and profession', alleging the same to be in lieu of professional/ entrepreneurial services. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding (in alternate) that compensation arising for alleged transfer of rights is taxable as short-term capital gains and not long-term capital

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 9(1)(i) of the Act, capital gain arising through or from the transfer of a capital asset situated in India would be deemed to accrue or arise in India in all cases irrespective of whether the capital asset is movable or immovable, tangible or intangible; the place of registration of the document of transfer etc. is in India

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

3 of 23 shown as Rs.1,32,32,609/- chargeable under Section 50 of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that Section 50 of the Act is not applicable as the entire division, i.e., plant and machinery belonging to the paper division had been sold. He came to the conclusion that Section 50 including sub-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 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and only following expenses are eligible to be deducted from the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head capital gains: 1. Which are incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Capital assets and 2. The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto

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

capital gain calculation and also as income from other sources. Inspite of Hon’ble DRP direction to record reason on the alleged treatment of impugned amount, no justification has been given in assessment order dated 26.06.2022 u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act. 5. That the learned AO / DRP has grossly erred in law and on facts

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

section 55(2)(ac) of the Act.\n\n5. The DRP decided the issue against the assessee and even differed with\nthe view of AO to tax only 65% of the capital gains but held that whole of the\ncapital gain from Mutual funds disinvestment are taxable and benefit of\ngrandfathering clauses was though given to assessee. The findings

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

6:- The grounds of appeal are inter-related and are being\nadjudicated together. The facts of the appeal are that the appellant had\nsold his agricultural land in Village Asola, New Delhi on 07/12/2015 for a\nconsideration of Rs 100 crores. The proceeds of the sale of this land\nresulted in capital gains of Rs 19,59,57,813/- after

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

3) of section 14A of the Act were not satisfied. 4.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that suo- motu disallowance of Ra.2,09,65,159/- by the appellant in the return of income under section 14A of the Act was incorrect and not backed by the documentary evidence. 4.3 Without prejudice, the assessing

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

3) of section 14A of the Act were not satisfied. 4.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that suo- motu disallowance of Ra.2,09,65,159/- by the appellant in the return of income under section 14A of the Act was incorrect and not backed by the documentary evidence. 4.3 Without prejudice, the assessing

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

6. In order to appreciate the controversy, the provisions of Section 45, 48 and 49 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) may be noticed. The relevant portions of the said sections read as under:- “Section 45:(1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains under Section 45 but not u/s 50 of the Income tax Act?” Background facts 3. The Assessee Teletube Electronics Ltd. („TEL‟) had two divisions i.e. a picture tube division situated at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh and a glass bulb division at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan for manufacturing glass shells/bulbs for domestic use. The said glass bulb division, which had three

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains under Section 45 but not u/s 50 of the Income tax Act?” Background facts 3. The Assessee Teletube Electronics Ltd. („TEL‟) had two divisions i.e. a picture tube division situated at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh and a glass bulb division at Bhiwadi, Rajasthan for manufacturing glass shells/bulbs for domestic use. The said glass bulb division, which had three

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

6 as acquired for trading purpose. Hence any gain arising from sake of these two shares has to be assessed as ‘capital gain’. 16. Further, from the perusal of details shown under LTCG of other scrips also, we find that the same have been acquired in the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 and were treated as part of investment