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 143 (1) of the 2 Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) on 28.12.2004. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. In response, ld. AR for the assessee attended from time to time and submitted relevant information as called

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)

73. The Assessee further submits that the liquidation of ETIL was not carried out with a view to claim the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA, because, even in the absence of liquidation, the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA was available to the Assessee as the Assessee had the option of selling the shares of ETIL, the gains arising whereof would

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section, for claiming the deduction on the\ncapital gains on the sale of the land, the first requirement is that capital gain\nshould arise from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years\nimmediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used\nby the assessee being an individual or his parent

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

Sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provide that capital gains arising on transfer of a long-term capital asset shall not be charged to tax to the extent specified therein, where the amount of capital gain is invested in a residential house. In the case of purchase of a house, the benefits available if the investment

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

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

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

73,510/- in place of ₹1,17,61,90,000/- declared in ROI for the purposes of determination of capital gains. The Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of 100% equity of Modi Tyres Ltd. determined at ₹38,55,75,851/- based on gross sale consideration of ₹117.61 crore was thus sought to be revised and reduced

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gain (STT) i. Mutual Funds Rs. 64,67,213/- ii. Shares (Rs. 11,73,187/-) iii. PMS Shares Rs. 7,14,85,406/- iv. PMS Mutual Funds Rs. 1,22,86,820/- Rs. 8,90,66,252/- 6.2 Provisions of Section

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gain (STT) i. Mutual Funds Rs. 64,67,213/- ii. Shares (Rs. 11,73,187/-) iii. PMS Shares Rs. 7,14,85,406/- iv. PMS Mutual Funds Rs. 1,22,86,820/- Rs. 8,90,66,252/- 6.2 Provisions of Section

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

capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income.\n9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that\ninvestment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic\nbusiness activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on\ncapital account and not as “stock-in-trade”.\n9.4 That the assessing officer

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

73 of the ITAT order dated 11th February 2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16. In other words, the ITAT did not disturb the capitalalization of interest paid on borrowed funds. 8. Against the order of ITAT in Assessment Years 2013- 14 and 2014-15, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court having

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

73 of the ITAT order dated 11th February 2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16. In other words, the ITAT did not disturb the capitalalization of interest paid on borrowed funds. 8. Against the order of ITAT in Assessment Years 2013- 14 and 2014-15, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court having

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal\nof the assessee for the AY 2017-18 is partly allowed as indicated\nabove and appeal of the assessee for the AY 2018-19 is dismissed

73 of the ITAT order dated 11th February\n2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16. In other words, the\nITAT did not disturb the capitalalization of interest paid\non borrowed funds.\n\n8. Against the order of ITAT in Assessment Years 2013-\n14 and 2014-15, the Revenue preferred an appeal before\nthe Hon'ble Delhi High Court having ITA Nos.482

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeal\nof the assessee for the AY 2017-18 is partly allowed as indicated\nabove and appeal of the assessee for the AY 2018-19 is dismissed

73 of the ITAT order dated 11th February\n2021 for Assessment Year 2015-16. In other words, the\nITAT did not disturb the capitalalization of interest paid\non borrowed funds.\n\n8.\nAgainst the order of ITAT in Assessment Years 2013-\n14 and 2014-15, the Revenue preferred an appeal before\nthe Hon'ble Delhi High Court having ITA Nos.482

PRAVEEN RANJAN SINHA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshpraveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Sa No. 57/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 399/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv Ms. Bhavya Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024

73 ITR 652 wherein the Supreme Court held that in the hands of the dealer of shares, any bonus shares received constitute a 'capital asset' unless specifically converted into stock-in-trade. Based on the aforesaid judgement, it is contended that the assessee received the bonus shares as a 'capital asset' and never converted the bonus shares into stock

SUCON INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- II, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

73. (1) Any loss, computed in respect of a speculation business carried on by assessee, shall not be set off except against profits and gains, if any, of another speculation business. (2) Where for any assessment year any loss computed in respect of a speculation has not been wholly set off under sub-section (1), so much of the loss

RAJESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO CIRCLE-28(1), DELHI

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

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, for the purpose of computing Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG), the appellant correctly applied indexation to the cost of acquisition, resulting in an indexed cost of Rs.1,26,73

RAJESH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI

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

section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, for the purpose of computing Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG), the appellant correctly applied indexation to the cost of acquisition, resulting in an indexed cost of Rs.1,26,73