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)

Long Term Capital Gain”. 8.3 Assessee had received Rs.33,12,18,930/- from Cinepolis Group on account of relinquishment of rights to sue and settlement of disputes by virtue of settlement agreement dated 12.11.2018 (pages 308 to 345) of the paper books). 20 8.4 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of CIT vs. J. Dalmia

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

prices of penny stock for generating capital\ngain/loss for beneficiaries.The undisclosed long term capital\ngain of Rs.51,52,564/- honor been contesta by appellant\nbefore the first appellate authority, i.e. It has accepted the\naddition of Rs.51,52,564/- on account of long term capital gain\nrelated to penny stock. In this context the preponderance of\nprobability of one appellant

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 :-

transfer thereof as Capital Gain, the same shall not be put to dispute by the Assessing Officer”. 19 Further with regard to Short Term Capital Gains, the appellant company has established that Circular 'no. 04/2007 dated 15.06.2007 is squarely applicable on the fact and circumstances of appellant company as the appellant company has fulfilled all the three conditions

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

long term capital gain arising out of sale of shares. 17. As regards the issue of denial of cost of acquisition, learned counsel submitted, the purpose of section 49(2AA) read with section 17(2)(vi) is to restrict the quantum of deduction to the amount taxed under the Act at the time of receipt of specified security. However

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)

price as it was the appellant who had traded in the shares of the this company which resulted into claim of long term capital gains which is exempt under section 10(38). Once the assessee was made aware of the result of the investigation which proved that trading of shares leading to long term capital gains was not genuine

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

terms of paragraph 4, capital gains derived by residents of Mauritius by alienation of shares of companies shall be taxable only in Mauritius according to Mauritius Tax Law. Therefore, any resident of Mauritius deriving income from alienation of shares of Indian Companies will be liable to capital gains tax only in Mauritius as per Mauritius tax law and will

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

long-term capital gain or not. vii. The AO could have further examined the receipt of shares in the Demat account of the assessee as to whose account is debited for transferring the shares in the Demat account of the assessee. He should have also examined whether the shares are transferred in the Demat account of the assessee are from

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

long-term capital gain or not. vii. The AO could have further examined the receipt of shares in the Demat account of the assessee as to whose account is debited for transferring the shares in the Demat account of the assessee. He should have also examined whether the shares are transferred in the Demat account of the assessee are from

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

Long Term Capital Gains/ (Loss) on sale of shares exempt under section 10(38) of the Act (Refer Note to Computation) Total Taxable Loss under the head Capital Gains (Exempt) B INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES Dividend Income 22,300,518 1 Less: Exempt dividend income under section 10(34) of the (22.300,518) Act (Refer Note to Computation) Total taxable

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

long term tantamount to business activities only. It would be worth referring to Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR)’ judgment in the case of AAR No. 445/98, where in Hon’ble Justice Suhas C Sen, observed & held as under: “The next question is about the classification of the profits made by the applicant from realisation of portfolio investment made in India

ADITYA SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Aditya Saraf Vs. Ito, Ward-17(4) B-45, Inder Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 012 Pan Awwps1249K (Appellant) (Respondent)

price as it was the appellant who had traded in the shares of the this company which resulted into claim of long term capital gains which is exempt under section 10(38). Once the appellant was made aware of the result of the investigation which proved that trading of shares leading to long term capital gains was not genuine

CHANAN LAL DHINGRA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

gain was computed at Rs. 8,20,500/-. The share of the assessee is 50%. Therefore, Rs. 4,10,250/- was added to the total income. Before the ld. CIT (Appeals) the assessee submitted that the above property, namely, of Villa in the Anandam Estate, Gurgaon was allotted to the assessee on 27.07.2010 and the payments were made

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

transfer of long term ‘capital asset’ is not includible in total income of the assessee in view of section 10(38) of the Act. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there is no estoppel against statute and surrender alone in absence of any incriminating material detected as a result of search

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

transfer of long term ‘capital asset’ is not includible in total income of the assessee in view of section 10(38) of the Act. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there is no estoppel against statute and surrender alone in absence of any incriminating material detected as a result of search

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

transfer of long term ‘capital asset’ is not includible in total income of the assessee in view of section 10(38) of the Act. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there is no estoppel against statute and surrender alone in absence of any incriminating material detected as a result of search

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

transfer of long term ‘capital asset’ is not includible in total income of the assessee in view of section 10(38) of the Act. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there is no estoppel against statute and surrender alone in absence of any incriminating material detected as a result of search

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

transfer of long term ‘capital asset’ is not includible in total income of the assessee in view of section 10(38) of the Act. 3.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there is no estoppel against statute and surrender alone in absence of any incriminating material detected as a result of search

ZILE SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. PR. CIT, FARIDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyzile Singh, Vs. Pr. Cit, H. No. 263, Sector-8, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana Pan: Ajeps1883J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Price movement of the scrip upwards and downwards done mainly through thin volume. d. Mostly the long-term capital gain is resulting only from few scripts in most cases 1 or 2 and the long-term capital gain as many times the purchase value. e. Typically holding period shown is just more than one year in case of long-term