COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

capital gain at `36,89,23,393. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order passed by the AO holding that the assessee had merely made a “Unit Sale” i.e. sale of its Lamp Division which was a part of its overall business concern and that the assessee still continued

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)

capital gain of Rs 67,87654/-. Apart from that, the assessee has also shown income from dividend which has been claimed as exempt income. 4. The assessee has filed return of income, declaring at Rs.72,16,819/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section 143(3) has been framed on 24-12-2008 assessing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

capital gain at `36,89,23,393. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order passed by the AO holding that the assessee had merely made a “Unit Sale” i.e. sale of its Lamp Division which was a part of its overall business concern and that the assessee still continued

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

72,820/-. 5. After setting off short term capital loss of Rs.89, 459/-on the sale of furniture and fixtures, the short term capital gains was ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 3 of 23 shown as Rs.1,32,32,609/- chargeable under Section

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

72,820/-. 5. After setting off short term capital loss of Rs.89, 459/-on the sale of furniture and fixtures, the short term capital gains was 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 3 of 23 shown as Rs.1,32,32,609/- chargeable under Section

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

The appeals are disposed of

72,820/-. 5. After setting off short term capital loss of Rs.89, 459/-on the sale of furniture and fixtures, the short term capital gains was 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 3 of 23 shown as Rs.1,32,32,609/- chargeable under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

72,820/-. 5. After setting off short term capital loss of Rs.89, 459/-on the sale of furniture and fixtures, the short term capital gains was 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 3 of 23 shown as Rs.1,32,32,609/- chargeable under Section

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 28(va) of the Act. 2.2 For the sake of convenience, the findings recorded by the Ld.AO in this regard are being extracted as below – 3. Long term capital gains from sale of shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd:- During the relevant previous year, the assessee has sold 24800 shares of M/s Momentum India Pvt Ltd (MIPL). These

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

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)

Section 48 of the Act. Various contentions raised before the DRP have been stated in the objections. 32 31. The Ld. AR specifically contended and without prejudice to the contention that the capital gain offered by the assessee should be accepted as against the capital gain determined by the Assessing Officer that the assessee should be allowed

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

MONI KUMAR SUBBA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(47). As this represents the amount for transfer of capital asset, it is taxable as capital gain u/s 45 of the IT Act. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the above transaction are transfer and the assessee is liable to capital gain tax on account of the same

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MONI KUMAR SUBBA, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit, Vs. Sh. Moni Kumar Subba, Central Circle-4, New Delhi Subba Farm House, 118, Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Gurgaon Road, Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri. Moni Kumar Subba, Vs. Acit, Subba Farm House, 118, Central Circle-4, E-2, Ara Village Sultanpur, Mehrauli, Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., Gurgaon Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aasps1484J (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(47). As this represents the amount for transfer of capital asset, it is taxable as capital gain u/s 45 of the IT Act. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the above transaction are transfer and the assessee is liable to capital gain tax on account of the same

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 of Rs. 1,17,34,753/- under section 10(38) of the Act and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. He also added Rs. 2,11,226/- to the income of the assessee being commission @ 1.8% of trade value on account of providing accommodation 3 entries under

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

72,00,000/- and Building ` 1,03,00,000/-. The capital Gain raised from sale of assets was invested in the Bonds ‘Rural Electrification Corporation Limited’ under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain by relying on the decision in the case of Divine Construction Company Vs ACIT (2011) 138 TTJ 72 (ITAT-Mum) where the ITAT held that if depreciation is not claimed then sale of such assets cannot be computed as per the provisions of section

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain by relying on the decision in the case of Divine Construction Company Vs ACIT (2011) 138 TTJ 72 (ITAT-Mum) where the ITAT held that if depreciation is not claimed then sale of such assets cannot be computed as per the provisions of section

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain by relying on the decision in the case of Divine Construction Company Vs ACIT (2011) 138 TTJ 72 (ITAT-Mum) where the ITAT held that if depreciation is not claimed then sale of such assets cannot be computed as per the provisions of section