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

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

price of ` 5,75,00,000/-, ` 4,72,00,000/- was for the land and ` 1,03,00,000/- was received in respect of the building. 5. In computing the capital gains on transfer of the property in terms of Section 45 of the Act, the assessee declared long

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

price of mutual fund isRs.1004,58,57,202/- in respect of long term capital gain and Rs.1587,10,65,228/- in respect of short term capital gain which is substantial by any standard. Hence, he treated the transaction as the business activity of the assessee. Law is well settled now that intent is required to be examined whether

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

price of mutual fund isRs.1004,58,57,202/- in respect of long term capital gain and Rs.1587,10,65,228/- in respect of short term capital gain which is substantial by any standard. Hence, he treated the transaction as the business activity of the assessee. Law is well settled now that intent is required to be examined whether

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)

long term capital gain as per mode of computation prescribed in section 48 of Income Tax Act and the Assessing Officer was not justified in computing income on notional basis taking into consideration time value of money. Accordingly, addition of Rs.8,36,25,157/- is hereby deleted and Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the appeal are allowed.” 6. With reference

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)

long term capital gain as per mode of computation prescribed in section 48 of Income Tax Act and the Assessing Officer was not justified in computing income on notional basis taking into consideration time value of money. Accordingly, addition of Rs.8,36,25,157/- is hereby deleted and Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the appeal are allowed.” 6. With reference

GURBAKSHISH SINGH BATRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

long term or short term capital gain and value of sale consideration in terms of 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the light of above position, he made a reference to the following details as mentioned in his synopsis: • On 30/03/1996, the Appellant applied for allotment of industrial plot vide Application no. 10019. • On 02/01/2004, the Appellant

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PNB FINANCE & INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

transferred to the investment portfolio. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the said practice of taking all its securities under the investment head had since then been followed and the revenue had never raised any query on that score. The assessing officer perused the clarification given by the assessee, referred to the Memorandum of Association