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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 48) Less cost of acquisition dated 26/12/2007 53,75,45,944/– 2 for 48,35,850 shares amounting to RS. 207,95,93,242/- therefore cost of acquisition for 1250000 shares is Total short-term capital gain 2,60,00,788 3 Share of the assessee at the rate of 50% 1,30,00,394/- 4 Further, learned assessing

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

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

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

92,544/-, the AO accepted the assessee’s claim for long term capital gain. An assessed correspondence amount to Rs. 17,10,906/- as long term capital gain by allowing index cost of Rs. 81,638/-. Page 4 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. However, the remaining amount of Rs. 1,15,00,663/- was assessed as income

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 Act. Therefore we are inclined to decide the issue of claim of administration expenses in favour of the revenue. Ultimately, the assessee may get the benefit of claim of these 12 expenses as business expenditure under the head business income. As such there is no impact for the same in this AY. 14. With regard

M/S. GURU KRIPA AGRO FOODS,HARYANA vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

92,446/- and Rs. 24,90,856/- respectively to first part on account of balance payment payable by them after adjusting their capital account against properties to be given/assigned to them within a period of four months from the date of dissolution and these obligations and accounting entries and transfer of immovable assets took place during F.Y. 2008-09 starting

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

gain as per Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962 is required to be adopted, the said rate was 0.6252 and as such the computation made by the 37 assessee had been correctly adopted by it, appears to be just and proper. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the actual rate of conversion i.e. 0.6252 after verifying

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

92,69,29,944 65 320,25,04,464 HDFC Flexi Cap Fund Regular Plan Growth 8,01,47,806 65 5,20,96,074 Total 593,48,24,274 385,76,35,779 8.6 From the above table, the assessee's capital gain from HDFC Mf Mutual fund wherein the investment is made in Equity/shares by the assessee

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2002-03

Capital gains" or "Income from other sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B’. The legislature did not make all the provisions of the Act, including section 92

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

capital Gain raised from sale of assets was invested in the Bonds ‘Rural Electrification Corporation Limited’ under section 54EC.” 4. The Assessing Officer noticed that according to the agreement of sale, the assessee was to receive ` 7,25,00,000/- as consideration for the property which consisted of basement, ground, first and second floors with terrace rights. The building

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 2(42A), which was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015. 2.That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in re-computing the amount of capital gain arising from sale of shares of M/s Scorpio Beverages Pvt. Ltd. ('SBPL') by substituting actual sales consideration of Rs. 9,97,92

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GDA FINVEST TRADE (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

92,653/- which the AO has assessed as business income and the learned CIT(A) has directed to assess the same as short term capital gain. 11. It is an admitted fact that the assessee during the year has earned long term capital gain of Rs.14,27,860/-. This long term capital gain has been accepted

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 earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption was claimed in respect of a residential property acquired at Kanpur i.e the "new asset". That other than the "New Asset" the appellant was the legal owner of only one Residential Property at Sky lounge Pune. The L.D A.O however disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant

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 earned in respect of transfer of land at Gujarat. The exemption was claimed in respect of a residential property acquired at Kanpur i.e the "new asset". That other than the "New Asset" the appellant was the legal owner of only one Residential Property at Sky lounge Pune. The L.D A.O however disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant

ACIT CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI vs. LOKVIR KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain from the Financial Year (“FY”) 2005-06. 2 Ground No. 2: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts in holding that indexation was done by Appellant from FY 2007-08, when the Appellant has calculated the same from FY 2005-06 in the original income tax return. 3. Ground No. 3: That

LOKVIR KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain from the Financial Year (“FY”) 2005-06. 2 Ground No. 2: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts in holding that indexation was done by Appellant from FY 2007-08, when the Appellant has calculated the same from FY 2005-06 in the original income tax return. 3. Ground No. 3: That