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 2(84) of the Companies Act, 2013 defines\n“share” means a share in the share capital of a company and includes stock. It\nrepresents the interest of a shareholder in the company, measured for the\npurposes of liability and dividend. It attaches various rights and liabilities\ndirectly connected to the ownership and principles like concept of lifting

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)

84,76,479/-. It is held that there is no such procedure for computation of capital gain prescribed under the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has attempted to tax notional income which is incorrect since the Income Tax Act has specifically provided mode of computation of capital gain in section

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)

84,76,479/-. It is held that there is no such procedure for computation of capital gain prescribed under the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has attempted to tax notional income which is incorrect since the Income Tax Act has specifically provided mode of computation of capital gain in section

AZIZUL GHANI ,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - ITO WARD 63(3) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarazizul Ghani Vs. Ito, Ward 63(3) 1407 Pan Mandi E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aajpg7737K Appellant .. Respondent

84 Bank statement showing above payments 85-116 Details of construction expenses 117-119 Bank statement showing construction expenses 120-147 Invoices of construction expenses in a separate PB. P a g e | 8 Azizul Ghani (AY: 2015-16) 9. Construction cost incurred within three years has to be allowed. Funds not necessarily to be kept in Capital Gain Account

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

SAKET KANOI,GURGAON vs. DCIT INTL. TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

section 2(84) of the Indian Companies Act, 2013 35 Saket Kanoi defines the term "share" to mean "a share in the share capital of a company and includes stock". Further, the term "company" has been defined to mean a "company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 or under any previous company law". Under the Securities and Exchange Board

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

section 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings also, the assessee filed written submission which has been incorporated by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 of his order. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the impugned income shown

ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SPRING INFRADEV LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

gains of Rs.12,97,20,752/- offered to tax by the assessee in its return of income filed on 29.09.2016 for AY 2016-17 CO No.118/Del/2024 was not taxable in view of the facts as discussed above was already on records of the AO, which has not been contested by the AO. We, therefore, after careful consideration, accept the grounds

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

section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956, it is mandatory for every\ncorporate-assessee to strictly follow the aforesaid accounting standards.\nThe appellant has consistently followed the Accounting Standard 13 and\nvalued the investments at cost and not at lower of cost or net realizable\nvalue. The accounting treatment followed by the assessee has always been\naccepted by the Revenue

ANU GERA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Accordingly Ground No. 3 of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

84,587 2,41,231 Acquisition (As per Agreement (As per Power to sell of attorney Capital Gain 16,90,413 22,33,769 Exemption u/s 54 16,90,413 20,00,000 Long Term Capital Nil 2,33,769 Gain 9. After considering the various facts, the AO recomputed the long term capital gain on account of transfer

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

section 94(8) of the Income Tax Act and the amendment brought to the same by Finance Act 2022 which was categorically made effective only from 01.04.2023hence not applicable to the case of the appellant and which, therefore, on the contrary categorically established that the position taken by the appellant was unassailable as the same was indisputably in accordance

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

BRAHAM PRAKASH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD - 1(3), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer 8 Braham Prakash Vs. ITO took place, was being used by the assessee or a parent of his for agricultural purposes (hereinafter referred to as the original asset), and the assessee

ACIT CIRCLE-36(1), NEW DELHI vs. HIMANSHU GARG, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

Capital Gains 1. Deed No. 72 – Rs.5,93,000/- 2. Deed No. 821 – (loss) Rs.2,59,000/- 4 CO No. 112/Del/2022 Himanshu Garg 3. Deed No. 987 – Rs.47,49,200/- 4. Taj Land – Rs.1,84,23,729/- & claimed exemption u/s54F 5. Other Land – Rs.15,40,600/- Total LTCG Rs.66,23,000/- (excluding Section

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Capital Gains after set off 10,37,56,538 2) 2008-09 Business Income 21,74,12,289 3) 2009-10 Business Income 5,84,98,543 4) 2010-11 Business Income 1,09,06,685 5) 2011-12 Business Income 3,76,74,480 In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.” We now advert