COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S ABHUINANDAN INVESTMENTS LT

Appeals are allowed

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S MANSAROVAR INVESTMENTS LTD

Appeals are allowed

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASI

Appeals are allowed

54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. XXXXX” [Emphasis Supplied] 17. The aforesaid Section is under the head of ‘capital gains’. Any profit or gain arising from “transfer” of a “capital asset

M R APPARELS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

54E, 54BA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H / be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Capital gains', and shall be deemed to be the income of previous year in which the transfer took place. ' Further, the argument of assessee that a certain part of sale consideration was not received by them, is not supported by registered sale deed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

price of `42.50 Crores was attributable to any particular asset including any depreciable asset and therefore provisions of Section 50(2) were not attracted. It also contended that it was an old concern for more than 36 months, its transfer would give long term capital gain. The assessee also relied on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. M/s. Artex Manufacturing

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

price of `42.50 Crores was attributable to any particular asset including any depreciable asset and therefore provisions of Section 50(2) were not attracted. It also contended that it was an old concern for more than 36 months, its transfer would give long term capital gain. The assessee also relied on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat v. M/s. Artex Manufacturing

SMT. NEELAM HANDA,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishineelam Handa, Ito, C-7/7, Ground Floor, Ward-20(4), Vs. Model Town-Iii, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abgph5388D (Appellant) (Respondent)

price was not utilised for construction of the building and it was deposited in an approved bank. The assessee took a plea before the appellate authorities that he had completed the construction of a house in Calicut on December 31, 1983 at a cost of Rs. 2,98,300, the cost of the building which he had sold was valued

SANJEEV JAIN,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. R.K. Pand & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

54E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was claimed. 4 The Assessing Officer has held that neither the purchase nor sale of shares were genuine and that the amount of Rs.1,41,08,484/- stated to have been received by Assessee on sale of shares was undisclosed income and accordingly made addition under section 69 of the Income