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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7 of the paper book wherein in ‘schedule EI’ of the income tax return form ITR – 2, assessee has disclosed at serial number 3 long-term capital gain from transactions on which security transaction taxes are paid amounting to RS. 1,36,67,68,705/–. He further referred to page number 2 which is the 1st page

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7 of the paper book wherein in ‘schedule EI’ of the income tax return form ITR – 2, assessee has disclosed at serial number 3 long-term capital gain from transactions on which security transaction taxes are paid amounting to RS. 1,36,67,68,705/–. He further referred to page number 2 which is the 1st page

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7 of the paper book wherein in ‘schedule EI’ of the income tax return form ITR – 2, assessee has disclosed at serial number 3 long-term capital gain from transactions on which security transaction taxes are paid amounting to RS. 1,36,67,68,705/–. He further referred to page number 2 which is the 1st page

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7 of the paper book wherein in ‘schedule EI’ of the income tax return form ITR – 2, assessee has disclosed at serial number 3 long-term capital gain from transactions on which security transaction taxes are paid amounting to RS. 1,36,67,68,705/–. He further referred to page number 2 which is the 1st page

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7 of the paper book wherein in ‘schedule EI’ of the income tax return form ITR – 2, assessee has disclosed at serial number 3 long-term capital gain from transactions on which security transaction taxes are paid amounting to RS. 1,36,67,68,705/–. He further referred to page number 2 which is the 1st page

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

7 of the paper book wherein in ‘schedule EI’ of the income tax return form ITR – 2, assessee has disclosed at serial number 3 long-term capital gain from transactions on which security transaction taxes are paid amounting to RS. 1,36,67,68,705/–. He further referred to page number 2 which is the 1st page

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)

section 143(3) has been framed on 24-12-2008 assessing the total income of Rs. 72,64,083/-. The AO had made the addition of Rs. 6787654/- on account of treatment of STCG as income from business and disallowance made u/s 14A at Rs 47264/-. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee has filed the appeal before

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 14A read with Rule 8D, takes into account only the interest component which can be attributed towards the income and not forming part of total income. It has nothing to do with the earning of interest income. 4. The Appellant craves to the allowed to amend, delete or add any other grounds of appeal during the course of hearing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

3, 4, 6 and 7), the State Bank of India Act, 1955 [Section 6(1)(g)], the State Bank Subsidiaries Banks Act, 1959 [Section 10(1)], the Backing Regulation Act. 1949 [Section 36AE(1)] and there have been legislative provisions for acquisition of some of these undertakings.” 18. Taking note of the various pronouncements in Para 164, the Supreme Court

GIRISH BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

7. The revised returns were picked up for scrutiny. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer („AO‟) framed the following questions for consideration: (i) Whether the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- revised by the assessee is a sale consideration and chargeable to tax under the head of capital gain or not? (ii) Whether the amount received

GYANENDRA BANSAL vs. UOI & ORS.

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

7. The revised returns were picked up for scrutiny. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer („AO‟) framed the following questions for consideration: (i) Whether the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- revised by the assessee is a sale consideration and chargeable to tax under the head of capital gain or not? (ii) Whether the amount received

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

3, 4, 6 and 7), the State Bank of India Act, 1955 [Section 6(1)(g)], the State Bank Subsidiaries Banks Act, 1959 [Section 10(1)], the Backing Regulation Act. 1949 [Section 36AE(1)] and there have been legislative provisions for acquisition of some of these undertakings.” 18. Taking note of the various pronouncements in Para 164, the Supreme Court

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)

3. Analysis of the results of the background Para 7 (page 18-20) ECL Para 7 proceedings leading to capital gains taxation (page 16-19) ECOM 4. Summarising the analysis of the AO Para 8 (page 20-22) ECL Para 8 (page 19-21) ECOM 5. Summarising the analysis of the AAR Para 9 (page 22-24) ECL Para

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

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

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

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

7. 3. Ground nos.1, 3, 3(i) and 4: "1. That the Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department has grossly erred both in law and on facts in making an assessment under section 143(3) r.w 1448 of the Act at an income of Rs.6,11,19,987/-and short-term capital loss of (- ) Rs.1,45,74,040/- as against