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)

capital asset if it is held for not more than thirty-six months. However, in the case of share of an unlisted company or a unit of a Mutual Fund specified under clause (23D) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act, which is transferred during the period beginning on 1st April, 2014 and ending on 10th July

JAI BHIKSHU CREDIT AND HOLDING LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishijai Bhikshu Credit & Holding Vs. Dcit, Ltd, F-591, Sarita Vihar, Circle-13(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaacj0774F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 73, with effect from 1- 4-1988 are as under : Company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the head— i) Interest on securities; (ii) Income from house property (iii) Income from capital gains

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)

4. In so far as Question (c) is concerned, again there cannot be any dispute about the basic proposition that entries in the books of account alone are not conclusive in determining the nature of income. The Tribunal has applied the correct principle in arriving at the decision in the facts of the present case. The finding of fact does

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)

4( 1) of the Indo Mauritius Treaty read with Section 6(3) of the IT Act India read with Article 4(3) of the Treaty 26 (II) Judicial Dicta on tests for “control and management of affairs 223-239 situated wholly in India” 27 (III) Case of Dual Residence under the Treaty-Applicability of 235-239 Article 4

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

capital gains". 4. The assessment order does not mention the date on which the shares in question were purchased. We also note that the assessment order records that the assessee had converted and transferred the shares in question under the head "investment" on 1st April, 2004. This factual position was not disputed or questioned. The shares in question were sold

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 :-

73 3 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the revenue is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal, the same is reproduced below: 1. Whether, on the facts

M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 of this order). This is shows that it is not Capital Gain but supply of Man power is his pre-dominant business activities hence Sec. 73 is applicable and as a result carry forward of Short Term Capital Loss is dismissed. In result the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Therefore, assessee aggrieved by the above said orders has preferred

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)

73,211/-. This tax had been computed only for the purposes of calculation, despite the fact no tax was payable due to set-off against brought forward capital loss). Against the draft order of assessment, the assessee had filed its objections’ on 27.04.2016 u/s 144C(2) of the Act before the DRP. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee

M/S. A K CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6859/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 A. K. Capital Markets Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, 609, 6Th Floor, Antriksh Bhawan, 22, New Delhi Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadca9960D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sarabhjit Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2015 Order

4 A.K. Capital Markets Ltd. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that a search and seizure operations were carried out u/s 132 and survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the case of M/s A.K. Capital Services Ltd., its group companies, directors of such companies and their

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION CONSULTING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection of

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble : & Acit Circle 10(1), Vs. M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacd 3264 C C.O. 224/Del/2010 [In Ita No. 2321/Del/2010 (A.Y: 2006-07 ) & C.O. 217/Del/2012 M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Circle 10(1), B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi.

73,30,424/-, short term capital gains on futures at Rs. 12,47,345/-, short term capital gains on mutual funds at Rs. 5,63,033/-, long term capital gain on shares at Rs. 19,33,968/-, long term capital gains on mutual funds at Rs. 1,68,335/-. Since there were enormous transactions in sale/ purchase of shares

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION CONSULTING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection of

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble : & Acit Circle 10(1), Vs. M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacd 3264 C C.O. 224/Del/2010 [In Ita No. 2321/Del/2010 (A.Y: 2006-07 ) & C.O. 217/Del/2012 M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Circle 10(1), B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi.

73,30,424/-, short term capital gains on futures at Rs. 12,47,345/-, short term capital gains on mutual funds at Rs. 5,63,033/-, long term capital gain on shares at Rs. 19,33,968/-, long term capital gains on mutual funds at Rs. 1,68,335/-. Since there were enormous transactions in sale/ purchase of shares

SUNIL MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4743/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sunil Malhotra, Vs Acit, D-279, Defence Colony, Circle-54(1), New Delhi-110024 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaopm5378F Assessee By : Sh. N. S. Bhatnagar, Adv. Revenue By : Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2020 Order Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-18, New Delhi Dated 04.07.2016. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Learned Ito Erred In Law In Denying The Benefit Admissible U/S 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Wrongly Relying Upon Clause 2(A) Of Section 54F Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which On The Facts Of The Case In Not Applicable.

73,379/- 9. The provisions of Section 54 and 54F are as under: “Section 54: [(1)] [[Subject to the provisions of sub- section (2), where, in the case of an assessee51 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset [***], being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being

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

4. There is dispute regarding application of section 14A by the Assessing Officer for calculation of income which does not form part of the total income. The assessee had submitted detailed calculation before the ld. CIT(A), in which he has already disallowed a sum of Rs.1,05,329/- whereas the Assessing Officer has mentioned in his order only Rs.971

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

73. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case. 74. The only issue remains for consideration here is, whether the long-term capital gain on sale of two properties declared by the assessee in its return of income has to be excluded from taxable income

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

73. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case. 74. The only issue remains for consideration here is, whether the long-term capital gain on sale of two properties declared by the assessee in its return of income has to be excluded from taxable income

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

73. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record and duly considered the factual matrix of the case. 74. The only issue remains for consideration here is, whether the long-term capital gain on sale of two properties declared by the assessee in its return of income has to be excluded from taxable income

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

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

section 6(3) of the Act, what is required to be seen is de facto control, i.e., where the control and management is actually exercised. In the instant case, it is very clear that the control and management was exercised by the board of directors in Mauritius since all the 11 meeting during the previous year relevant

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DATAVISION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Acit, Vs. Datavision Systems P Ltd, Circle-10(1), 203, Pragati House, New Delhi 47-48, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaacd3381N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143 (3) has accepted the income from capital gains and has not made any adjustment on this account. In view of this it is submitted that income shown by the assessee on sale of shares is as investor and not as a Trader and therefore required to be charged under the head capital gains only and not business income