MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

section 71 provides for set off of loss in respect of capital gain. 8. From the conjoint reading and plain

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

section 71 provides for set off of loss in respect of capital gain. 8. From the conjoint reading and plain

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 28(iv) of the Act as 'profits and gains of business and profession', alleging the same to be in lieu of professional/ entrepreneurial services. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding (in alternate) that compensation arising for alleged transfer of rights is taxable as short-term capital gains and not long-term capital

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

section 112 of the Act, which is wholly unwarranted and untenable in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO/DRP has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee-appellant had discharged its onus to prove that it is a resident of Mauritius with the Management & Economic substance in Mauritius

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

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains and it did not matter if the assessee had a block of assets relating to other units/divisions. 8. In the first appeal, the CIT(Appeal) reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer and observed that the approach adopted by the Assessing Officer was contrary to Section

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

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 earned by the Appellant on the sale of Vodafone Essar Limited (VEL') shares by the Appellant to Euro Pacific Securities Limited ('EPSL') are taxable in India; Holding that the Appellant was tax resident of India and that its control and management is situated wholly in India 2. erred in treating the Appellant as tax resident of India under

ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST

capital asset who acquired it by 2012:DHC:983-DB ITA No.116/2011 Page 6 of 15 a mode of acquisition other than that referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) [or clause (iv)] of this [sub-section].] …. …..” 8. Section 45 of the Act stipulates that profits and gains

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

8. In view of this ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed holding that long term gain from listed securities of Rs.25,13,359 is chargeable to tax under the head capital gain and not business income. Ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” I.T.A. No.5656/Del/2019 13 2.10 In view of the consistent finding

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961. The said claim of long terms Capital gain of Re 63,01,425/- as exempt income has formed 8

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March 1997 contending that the lease could not be treated as „transfer‟. 8

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gain not be charged under Section 45 read with Section 50 of the Act. In respect of the said SCN, the Assessee replied on 25th March 1997 contending that the lease could not be treated as „transfer‟. 8

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

8 of his assessment order. In para 2 thereof, the Ld. AO apprised the assessee of the Investigation Report of Pr. DIT (Inv.) Kolkata wherein it is stated that M/s. HPC Biosciences Limited has been identified as BSE listed stock which have been used for generating bogus long term capital gain and exemption under section

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

capital gains computed under Section 50(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also negatived the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54EC of the Act on the ground that the said 2012:DHC:2200-DB ITA No.791/2011 Page 8

EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

section also\nexempts capital gains arising from a unit of an equity-oriented fund. This\ntreatment of capital gain to both equity shares and units of equity oriented\nfunds logically establish that units of equity funds are analogous/have\nsemblance with the equity shares.\n\n• Thus, the intent of Income Tax Law is very clear to treat the units

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Capital gains account on which\ntax is paid during A.Y. (18-19) claimed by the assessee on purchase of land\ndoesn't fall within the ambit of Sec 54B of income tax act, 1961. The same is\nbrought to tax accordingly under section 45 of the Income tax Act, 1961.\nAggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the learned

DEEPAK KATHARI,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-5, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain in AY 2017-18 and in any case, the methodology of computing sale consideration as adopted by the AO is not recognized by any provision of the Act including section 48 and he supported the findings of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that various judicial decisions are enclosed in the paper book as under

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 05 , DELHI vs. DEEPAK KOTHARI , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain in AY 2017-18 and in any case, the methodology of computing sale consideration as adopted by the AO is not recognized by any provision of the Act including section 48 and he supported the findings of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that various judicial decisions are enclosed in the paper book as under