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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain in the hands of the assessee as under:- Amount ( In Rs) Sale consideration on 19/6/2008 (STT) 56,35,46,732/- 1 12,50,000 shares (excluding STT as per proviso to section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75

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 OF SALE OF LAMP DIVSIION AS PER SECTION 50[2] Sale consideration received on transfer of lamp division at Sonepat ` 42,50,00,000/- WDV of lamp division ` 5,15,75

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

CAPITAL GAIN OF SALE OF LAMP DIVSIION AS PER SECTION 50[2] Sale consideration received on transfer of lamp division at Sonepat ` 42,50,00,000/- WDV of lamp division ` 5,15,75

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

75,791/- under the head income from business. Further, appellant has shown short term capital loss of Rs. (-)1,69,14,140/- by way of selling property at DLF Gurgaon. In its ROI, appellant has also shown LTCG of Rs.4,95,89,657/- by way of sale of property being Plot No. 20 Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. 7. 2. Ground

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

capital gains only. (xi) It is the prerogative of the parties to the agreement to decide upon their terms and considerations and unless there is any stipulation to the contrary the will and intention of the parties shall only prevail. There is no bar in the law on fixing different phases for the different years. (xii) It is trite

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

section 143(3) of the Act on 14/01/2016, the Assessing Officer made certain additions/disallowances and assessed the 3 ITA No. 3785/Del./2017 total income at ₹ 15,35,95,820/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain is not to be charged under Section 45 of the said Act. ” Principles laid down in aforesaid decision has been followed in various ITAT decisions being the following: v) Decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs Dr. Chalasani Mallikarjuna Rao (2016) 75

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)

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

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)

capital gain tax. 2. That the appellant has not sold the property to M/s. Subba Microsystems Ltd. and lease period was for a limited period of use of property during lease period and after expirty of lease period, land is to be restored back to the appellant and security deposit is refundable and as such there is no case

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)

capital gain tax. 2. That the appellant has not sold the property to M/s. Subba Microsystems Ltd. and lease period was for a limited period of use of property during lease period and after expirty of lease period, land is to be restored back to the appellant and security deposit is refundable and as such there is no case

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. AJAY KAILA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh.

capital gain of 99,53,675/-. As per provision of section 54 EC of the income tax act, the assessee is entitled to exemption on the investment made by the assessee under NHAI bonds under the said provision. The question arose in this case as to what extent the assessee should be so entitled. The assessee has invested

SURESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

capital gain as proved by the report of the investigation wing, would also have been on the online platform. The sale of shares will have to be on online platform of recognized stock exchange to obtain benefit of section 10 (38) of the act. The reason of the learned assessing officer for making an addition in para number

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

capital gains tax. It is an undisputed position that respondent Appellant is an investment company and had invested by purchasing a substantial number of shares and thereby securing right to management. Possibility of sale of shares by private placement etc. cannot be ruled out and is not an improbability. The, above ruling of Hon' Delhi High Court is a land

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

section 68 and in making the impugned addition. 25.4 Sannat Kumar vs. ACIT (2020) 122 taxmann.com 75 (Delhi- Trib): in this case the assessee purchased shares of CSL @ Rs. 10/- per share and 23 after one year sold the same at Rs. 476/- to Rs. 503/- per share. The AO found that CSL had been duly investigated by the Department