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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

94,670 open offer open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,442 91,12,828 market 09/03/10 Purchase d from Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,25,91,753 RRPR market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR Off 23,14,762 7

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

94,670 open offer open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,442 91,12,828 market 09/03/10 Purchase d from Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,25,91,753 RRPR market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR Off 23,14,762 7

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

94,670 open offer open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,442 91,12,828 market 09/03/10 Purchase d from Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,25,91,753 RRPR market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR Off 23,14,762 7

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

94,670 open offer open offer process 03/08/09 Sold to RRPR Off 57,81,842 18,926 4.00 2,31,27,368 2,31,08,442 91,12,828 market 09/03/10 Purchase d from Off 34,78,925 1,39,15,700 4.00 1,25,91,753 RRPR market 09/03/10 Sold to RRPR Off 23,14,762 7

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

7 of 22 unit was sold as going concern or as a slump sale and therefore, no part of consideration of `42.50 Crores was attributable to any particular asset including depreciable assets. The AO had not accepted this contention and held that Section 50 was applicable and he, therefore, computed short term capital gain at `36.89 Crores on the sale

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

94,893/- `5,60,76,607/- Capital Gain: `36,89,23,393/-“ 9. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that whether it was a slump sale or not was of no consequence and therefore, various case laws cited by the assessee in support of this proposition were not applicable. The learned counsel referred to the judgment in the case

NEELU ANALJIT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-9, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with above directions

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimrs. Neelu Analjit Singh, Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of 15, Dr. Apj Abdul Kalam Road, Income Tax , New Delhi Special Range-9, Pan: Aatps06882D New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2 (42A) of the act, and submitted that in its plain meaning the equity shares of a unlisted company can only become long term assets if held for more than 36 months. c. He further referred to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Asoka Chimanbhai 56 ITR 42 wherein in para number

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)

section 48 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had committed two errors while computing capital gain at Rs. 7,31,67,674/-, the first one being he had adopted conversion rate percentage TTBR i.e. telegraphic transfer buying rate on the date of transfer @ 1.62. The submission of the Ld. AR is that the agreement

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

94,888/- resulting in short term capital gain of Rs.1,33,22,068/- as the written down value of the said plant and equipment was Rs.98,72,820/-. 5. After setting off short term capital loss of Rs.89, 459/-on the sale of furniture and fixtures, the short term capital gains was ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

94,888/- resulting in short term capital gain of Rs.1,33,22,068/- as the written down value of the said plant and equipment was Rs.98,72,820/-. 5. After setting off short term capital loss of Rs.89, 459/-on the sale of furniture and fixtures, the short term capital gains was 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

94,888/- resulting in short term capital gain of Rs.1,33,22,068/- as the written down value of the said plant and equipment was Rs.98,72,820/-. 5. After setting off short term capital loss of Rs.89, 459/-on the sale of furniture and fixtures, the short term capital gains was 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011

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

The appeals are disposed of

94,888/- resulting in short term capital gain of Rs.1,33,22,068/- as the written down value of the said plant and equipment was Rs.98,72,820/-. 5. After setting off short term capital loss of Rs.89, 459/-on the sale of furniture and fixtures, the short term capital gains was 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011

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

Section 94(7) can only be applicable on the short term capital loss. However, the issue we are dealing is of long term capital gains

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

Section 94(7) can only be applicable on the short term capital loss. However, the issue we are dealing is of long term capital gains

KAPIL KUMAR AGARWAL,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishikapil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Ipsaa House Anm & Circle-1(1), Associates, J021A, Mayfiled Gurgaoon Gardens, Sector-51, Gurgaon Pan: Aacpa2412L (Appellant) (Respondent)

94 categorically distinguished the above view taken in the case of Smt. Ushaben Jayantilal Sodhan on the ground that benefit of section 54F cannot be denied where the construction got completed after the sale of asset subject to capital gains. ii) Secondly the aforesaid decision is from ITAT rendered prior to the decision of Kuldeep Singh from Delhi High Court

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)

7 (V) Loan availed by Group based on the security of ownership of 81-87 ECL/ECOM in HEL/VEL - Facts showing that Applicant Companies have no decision making power 8 (VI) Various Put and Call Option Agreements with Vodafone 88-93 Group -showing lack of separate identity of the Applicant Companies 9 (VII) Ultimate beneficiary Factual Matrix 94-102 - Ruia Family

MDLR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

7. CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers 197 ITR 350 (Rajasthan) 8. CIT vs. National Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta) 9. CIT vs. BP Sherafuddin 399 ITR 524 (Kerela) 22. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that transactions entered into by two sister concerns cannot be a valid ground for addition :- 1. ITA No. 596/Kol/2011 M/s Pluto Finance

MDLR BUILDERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

7. CIT vs. Associated Garments Makers 197 ITR 350 (Rajasthan) 8. CIT vs. National Co. Ltd. 199 ITR 445 (Calcutta) 9. CIT vs. BP Sherafuddin 399 ITR 524 (Kerela) 22. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that transactions entered into by two sister concerns cannot be a valid ground for addition :- 1. ITA No. 596/Kol/2011 M/s Pluto Finance