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

gain of Long term capital asset or Short term capital asset being shares. Accordingly, Long term capital loss on sale of shares would be allowed to be set

SH. ANIL SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2023-24] Ira Sharma, Vs Dcit L/H Of Late Shri Anil Cpc, Bangalore Sharma (Since Deceased), Ito, Ward-30(1) Civic Centre, New Delhi W-68, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi-110048. Pan-Aasps8245F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vipin Jain, Ar Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2025

set off of current year Long Term Capital loss on sale of 10,56,001 shares and short term capital loss of INR 7,50,902/- from redemption of mutual funds out of the Long Term Capital Gains

SAIF PARTNERS INDIA IV LIMITED ,DELHI vs. ACIT INT. TAXATION-3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

gain in India. The ld. CIT has clearly ignored the fact the assessee has neither claimed nor carried forward such capital loss in its return of income filed in India. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, has laid down the following ratio: "A bare reading of section 263 of the Income

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss account. He has further submitted that intention of the assessee behind the investment was to earn the dividend and not to earn the profit. He has also submitted that assessee company was registered as share broker and as per the Memorandum of Association, the main object of the company was to deal in stocks and shares

HEIDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaheidelberg Cement India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Infinity Circle-2, Towers, Dlf, Cybercity, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm2359J

gains (LTCG). Interconnected issue involved therein is the order of priority of set off i.e. where LTCL for AY 2007-08 should be set off first or business loss of the year should be set off first with the long term capital

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

loss account and also Form 3CA and 3CD are not applicable to the assessee company. However, the assessee filed copy of ITR-6 along with computation of income. The assessee also explained that since assessee has not carried on any business activity in India during the year under consideration, no sale/purchase transaction have taken place. It is further submitted that

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

loss and compensation for delay in possession as capital receipt. On the other hand, the AO treated the surplus as short term capital gain and compensation as revenue receipts and taxed it as income from other sources. So far question whether the assessee is entitled for set

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

loss and set off the same with the short term capital gain by SA No. 57/Del/2024 Praveen Ranjan Sinha involving

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 :-

Loss on sale of assets (1,34,838) Donation (3,00,000) Sub Total 7,44,265 Total Expenses claimed 86,04,017.13 The AO disallowed the above expenses for the reason that the above expenditures are not allowed to be claimed under the head Capital Gains u/s 48 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred

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)

set up for availing tax benefits and for avoidance of tax 11. erred in holding that the acquisition of 6,56,34,887 VEL shares by the Appellant by way of liquidation is without any commercial purpose and is incontrovertibly a colourable device for avoidance of capital gain tax in India 12. erred in holding that the Appellant had contrived

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

loss and also long-term gain cannot be treated as business income. Accordingly, ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.” 3.9 Further, in assessment year 2012-13 i.e. immediately preceding assessment year, the Tribunal in ITA No.4711/Del/2016 in order dated 26/03/2018 held the activity of purchase on sale of the shares assessable under the head capital gain

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

The appeals are disposed of

setting off of the loss falling under the head ―capital gains‖ against any capital gains falling under the same head

BIGSTAR HOTELS RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NEW DELHI

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

gain set off large capital loss. The AO while examining the issue of capital gain vis-à-vis capital loss

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)

loss or renunciation of right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures, the crucial date is the date on which such right to subscribe for additional shares/ debentures comes into existence and the date of transfer (renunciation) of such right. The said right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures is a distinct, independent and separate right, capable of being transferred independently

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)

set aside the order of the CITTA) and restore that of the AO." 5.2.7 While confirming the decision of ITAT Chandigarh Berich (SOM NATH MAINI vs. CIT, Hon'ble P&H High Court has held as under- "The assessee incurred capital loss on account of sale of gold jewellery and also had short- term capital gain

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

loss of Rs.219,70,90,370/- declared by the assessee after claiming benefit of indexation. 9.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in assessing short- term capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds

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

loss of Rs.219,70,90,370/- declared by the assessee after claiming benefit of indexation. 9.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in assessing short- term capital gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds

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

set out in Article 27A (“LOB”). Article 13(4)\nstill leaves taxing rights of any property, other than that mentioned in\nparagraphs 1, 2, 3, and 3A, with the residence state.\n\n10. Relevant to interpret the purport of this protocol is the Press Information\nBureau, Government of India, Ministry of Finance release dated 10-May-2016\non India