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

The appeals are disposed of

capital gains tax is not payable as per Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?‖ 2. As we have heard learned counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question, we proceed to dictate our decision. 3. These appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page

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 :-

90,871/- business income Short term Capital Gain treated as Rs. 16,14,264/- business income 2. Disallowance of Capital loss on transfer Rs. 40,60,000/- 73 of shares of PDK Shenaj Hotels Pvt. Ltd 3. Disallowance of all Expenses debited to Rs. 86,04,017/- 58 profit and loss account 4. Disallowance of Donation paid

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 Mauritian residents was contrary to the provisions of Article 13(4) of India-Mauritius DTAA. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the CBDT was correct in issuing the aforesaid circular directing the Assessing Officers that wherever the TRC is issued by the MRA, the benefit of India-Mauritius DTAA is available to the taxpayer

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 90 of the Act provides as under: 90. (1) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India or specified territory outside India,— (a) for the granting of relief in respect of— (i) income on which have been paid both income- tax under this Act and income-tax in that country

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

section 14A are mandatory provisions.” 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee in the Revenue’s Appeal submitted at the outset that identical issue came up in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2010-11, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein the benefit of Long Term Gains arising

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

section 32 of the Act, consistent with his finding that the aforesaid expenditure is capital in nature. 9. That the assessing officer /DRP erred on facts and in law in treating gains from sale and purchase of mutual funds as "business income” as against the same being declared under the head capital gains" by the appellant. 9.1 That the assessing

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

section 32 of the Act, consistent with his finding that the aforesaid expenditure is capital in nature. 9. That the assessing officer /DRP erred on facts and in law in treating gains from sale and purchase of mutual funds as "business income” as against the same being declared under the head capital gains" by the appellant. 9.1 That the assessing

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

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

90,13,588\nHDFC Flexi Cap Fund Direct\nPlan Growth Option\n4,92,69,29,944\n65\n320,25,04,464\nHDFC Flexi Cap Fund\nRegular Plan Growth\n8,01,47,806\n65\n5,20,96,074\nTotal\n593,48,24,274\n385,76,35,779\n\n8.6 From the above table, the assessee's capital gain from HDFC

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

90,00,000/- in REC Bonds the entire long term capital gains are exempt under Section 54EC of the Act. 17. We are fortified

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

capital gains not taxable in India.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "13(4)", "6(3)", "13(3A)", "13(36)", "250", "90(2)", "90

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gains (‘LTCG’) of Rs.50,44,027/- and the exempted LTCG of Rs.8,90,66,252/-. However, it offered a sum of Rs.8,21,45,406/- as income under section

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Capital Gains (‘LTCG’) of Rs.50,44,027/- and the exempted LTCG of Rs.8,90,66,252/-. However, it offered a sum of Rs.8,21,45,406/- as income under section

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54(1) or 54(2) as the\ncase may be.In view of the fact that the propertyat D-4,\nVivekanand, Puri, Lucknow was sold in FY 2013-14, by no\nstretch of imagination can the long term capital gain arising\nfrom such sale be adjusted against acquisition of property at N-\n1, Kailash Colony, New Delhi which was purchased

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain. NO evidence of actual\nsale except the contract notes Issued by the share broker were produced by\nthe assessee. No question of law, therefore arises in the present case and the\nconsistent finding of fact returned against the Appellant are based on\nevidence on record.\n\n9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find

MODI RUBBER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

capital gains under section 48 of the Act ?. The issue is essentially factual in nature and there is no straight jacket formula of universal application in such matters. 13.1 As noted in the preceding paragraphs, the assessee-company transferred its shareholdings of subsidiary company namely Modi Tyres to transferee namely CIL for an agreed consideration of ₹117,16,90

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1 vs. REEMA CHAWLA

Appeals are dismissed

Section 54F is a beneficial provision and is applicable to an assessee when the old capital asset is replaced by a new capital asset in the form of a residential house. Once an assessee falls within the ambit of a beneficial provision, then the said provision should be liberally interpreted. The Supreme Court in CCE v. Favourite Industries

GY AVIATION LEASE 1205 CO LTD,IRELAND vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 1(3)(1) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed, pro tanto

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.994/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Kosi Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaick-6199-B बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(2), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.1027/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Hoohly Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aafch-6609-C बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(1)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 आअसं.1070/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2022-23) Luni Aviation Leasing Ltd., C/O Dmd Advocates, 30, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaecl-5180-H बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), Civic Centre, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Minto Road, New Delhi 110002

Section 90(1) notification, the assessee would, in any event, be entitled to treaty protection. The relief claimed aligns squarely with the treaty's object and purpose. We accordingly so hold.” 24. Thus, the Coordinate Bench on the issue of operation of MLI gave a conclusive finding that in the absence of specific notification in accordance with section 90