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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

set of shares. As discussed above, the joint demat account with Indiabulls was opened with purchase of 48,35,850 shares on 26.12,2007. As per the D-mat statement on 1.1.2008, 40,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 shares; whereas on 30.04.2008, only 27,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 equity

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

set of shares. As discussed above, the joint demat account with Indiabulls was opened with purchase of 48,35,850 shares on 26.12,2007. As per the D-mat statement on 1.1.2008, 40,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 shares; whereas on 30.04.2008, only 27,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 equity

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

set of shares. As discussed above, the joint demat account with Indiabulls was opened with purchase of 48,35,850 shares on 26.12,2007. As per the D-mat statement on 1.1.2008, 40,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 shares; whereas on 30.04.2008, only 27,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 equity

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

set of shares. As discussed above, the joint demat account with Indiabulls was opened with purchase of 48,35,850 shares on 26.12,2007. As per the D-mat statement on 1.1.2008, 40,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 shares; whereas on 30.04.2008, only 27,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 equity

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

set of shares. As discussed above, the joint demat account with Indiabulls was opened with purchase of 48,35,850 shares on 26.12,2007. As per the D-mat statement on 1.1.2008, 40,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 shares; whereas on 30.04.2008, only 27,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 equity

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

set of shares. As discussed above, the joint demat account with Indiabulls was opened with purchase of 48,35,850 shares on 26.12,2007. As per the D-mat statement on 1.1.2008, 40,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 shares; whereas on 30.04.2008, only 27,00,000 shares were pledged out of 48,35,850 equity

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MS. PIYA SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Ms. Piya Singh, 15, Aurangzeb Acit, Circle-47(1), 426, Mayur Bhavan, New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Apdps6582D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Rupesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing 03.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 29/03/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2006-07, Raising Following Grounds: “I) Deleting The Assessing Officer To Allow The Long Term Capital Loss & Thereby Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,09,90,799/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain On Sale Of Apartment: Ii) Concluding The Fact That The Assessee Incurred Capital Loss First In Point Of Time & Capital Gains Were Arrived At Much Later Date Not Considering That It Was Not Only On 01.03.2006 I.E. On The Date Of Sale That The Assessee Came To Know That She Was Going To Earn Profit On Her Investment In The Apartment Rather It Was Well Within Her Knowledge That The Value Of Investment In The Property Was Appreciating & As She Invested In The Property Only For The Purpose Of Earning Profit, The Sale Of Shares Seven Months Before

set off against the capital gain income. There is no dispute that the gain arising on sale of flat resulted in long term capital gains to the appellant. The only dispute is whether the long term capital loss

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

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

loss. Simply because the assessee has held the shares for less than period of 12 months it does not straight away put in the bracket of trading activity, especially when there is no repetitive transaction of the shares. However in so far as detail of Short Term Capital Gain is concerned, the assessee has filed voluminous detail which has been

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

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

loss. Simply because the assessee has held the shares for less than period of 12 months it does not straight away put in the bracket of trading activity, especially when there is no repetitive transaction of the shares. However in so far as detail of Short Term Capital Gain is concerned, the assessee has filed voluminous detail which has been

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

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

loss. Simply because the assessee has held the shares for less than period of 12 months it does not straight away put in the bracket of trading activity, especially when there is no repetitive transaction of the shares. However in so far as detail of Short Term Capital Gain is concerned, the assessee has filed voluminous detail which has been

OPUS REALITY DEVELOPMENT LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-225/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2009-10) Opus Reality Development Ltd. Vs Acit Circle-13(1) 404, Roots Tower, New Delhi District Centre, Laxmi Nagar (Respondent) Delhi Aaaco9775H (Appellant)

gain first and the remaining loss, if any, can then be set off against interest income. Thus income computed and Assessing Officer after set off of Business loss against LTCG, the held that net result remains is long term capital

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

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

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Vic Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, Circle-17(1), New Delhi. 10-Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacv0132B) (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss of Rs.47,82,051 thus the net gain was claimed at Rs.6,23,34,129. The assessee had classified the gains into long term and short term, after taking into consideration the period of holding of shares. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the claim of the assessee on the basis that the number of shares and frequency

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Loss incurred by the appellant on transfer of Short Term Capital Asset was to be set off against the Long Term Capital Gain

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

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)

set off of the brought forward long term capital losses of Rs. 7,31,67,675 to the appellant against the capital gain

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