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 9(1)(i) of the Act, capital gain arising through or from the transfer of a capital asset situated

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 12B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, itself were not applicable in the assessment year 1955-56." 9. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court took into consideration the aspect that capital gains

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 12B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, itself were not applicable in the assessment year 1955-56." 9. We find that the Hon’ble Apex Court took into consideration the aspect that capital gains

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 2(24) of the Act. Capital receipt is by its very nature, not "income" per se and is, unless otherwise specifically provided, not liable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Being so, only such capital receipts, which are taxable under the head "capital 9 gains

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

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains. He held that Section 50 did not permit the said approach adopted by the Assessing Officer. He also referred to Circular No. 464 dated 23rd September, 2006 issued by the Board. 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 5 of 23 9

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 :-

9. Aggrieved against the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us. 10. At the time of hearing, ld. DR reiterated the findings of the Assessing Officer that various expenses like PMS, salary, administration, depreciation, etc. shall not be permissible under the head ‘capital gain’ as per the provisions of section

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 gains” and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the said transfer took place. This is the charging section. Sections 48 and 49 prescribe the mode of computation and cost of acquisition, improvement normally and with reference to certain modes of acquisition and indexation of the cost of acquisition/ improvement. 9

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)

capital gains) as genuine. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the action of ld AO in making addition of Rs 64,90,468/- without appreciating spirit of law contained in section

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

section 9(1) of the Act, capital gain through the transfer of a capital asset situated in India is deemed

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

9 1 1 5 2 0 Percentag 98.34% 0.70% 0.16% 017% 0.18% 0.15% e of Capital gain to Total capital gain *inclusive of shares of Dabur India Ltd., Punjab Tractors Ltd. and ABN Amro Securities Pvt. Ltd. Total Capital Rs. Long Term Capital Gain claimed exempt u/s. 10(38) 1,06,78,21,147 Long Term Capital Gain on sale

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains were attracted under Section 50 of the Act. Order of the CIT (A) 9. The appeal filed by the Assessee

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gains were attracted under Section 50 of the Act. Order of the CIT (A) 9. The appeal filed by the Assessee

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 10(38) of the Act. It is an admitted position that during assessment proceedings the Ld. AO brought to the notice of the assessee that AIR data, ITS query (ITD) revealed that she had the impugned long term capital gain from penny stock company i.e. M/s. HPC Biosciences Limited and that as per Investigation Report

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

capital gains\nof Rs.310,80,53,009/- pertained to sale of units of mutual funds acquired prior\nto 01/04/2017 and hence, in respect of such gains, Article 13(3A) cannot be\napplicable. The relevant extract of the submissions of the assessee which were\nagain reasserted by ld. Sr. Counsel is reproduced as under:-\n\n• \"It is imperative to note

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), DELHI vs. HKT CORPORATION PVT LTD, DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No.1036/Del/2024\nAssessment Year: 2020-21\n\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-11(1),\nDelhi\nVs.\nM/s. HKT Corporation Pvt.\nLtd.,\n7, South Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\nPAN: AACCH0308M\n\n(Appellant)\n\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nSh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.\n\nDepartment by\nSh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR\n\nDate of hearing\n23.06.2025\n\nDate of pronouncement\n09.07.2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER SATBEER SINGH

Section 12B(2)(ii) of the Indian\nI.T. Act, 1922, for the purpose of determining the capital gain\nderived from the sale of the land. The basic principle, in cases\nof this kind, is to ascertain the actual cost of acquisition to the\nassessee and in arriving at the figure of actual cost of\nacquisition the interest which has been

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

capital gains under Section 50(2) of the Act and the refusal to allow deduction under Section 54EC of the Act before the CIT (Appeals). It would appear that before the CIT (Appeals) the assessee submitted valuation reports from an approved valuer in support of the bifurcation of the purchase price between the land and building

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 54B', which is reproduced as under:-\nCondition\nTesting the conditions of Sec 54B\nWhether\nfulfilled\nRemarks\n1\ncapital gain arises from\nthe transfer of a capital Yes\nasset being land\nSale of Agricultural land of area 37 Bighas 15 Biswas\nin village Asola, New Delhi 110074 on 07/12/2015 for\na value of Rs. 100 Crore by the assessee