COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. COTTON NATURALS (I) PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

section 92C, the arm's length price in relation to an international transaction 55a[or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely :— (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which,— (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred

CAIRN INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2011-12] & [A.Y 2012-13] Cairn India Ltd., Vs. The A.C.I.T, Dlf Atria Building, Circle-1(1), Jacaranda Marg, N Block, Gurgaon. Dlf City Phase Ii, Gurgaon. [Pan: Aaccc 8799D] [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Ravi Sharma, Adv

pricing) to those that might reasonably have been expected had the transfer of property been the subject of a transaction involving independent enterprises. Thus, in the case described above it might be appropriate for the tax administration, for example, to adjust the conditions of the agreement in a commercially rational manner as a continuing research agreement. 1.66 In both sets

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

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

55A of the Act. Section 45 defines capital gains and sub-section (1) thereof reads as under: “Section 45 (1) (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer 737 of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. ECE Industries Limited

55A of the Act. Section 45 defines capital gains and sub-section (1) thereof reads as under: “Section 45 (1) (1) Any profits or gains arising from the transfer 737 of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H be chargeable to income

UMA DUTT PALIWAL PROP.,PANIPAT vs. ADDL. CIT, PANIPAT

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Uma Dutt Paliwal, Vs Addl. Cit, Prop. Paliwal Home Furnishing, Karnal. Panipat. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Gurjeet Singh, Ca Respondent By: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr. Dr

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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:-

transfer of leasehold rights. 3.2 In any case, this being a case of bonafide sale made in accordance with prevailing market rate, the Pr. CIT, New Delhi was not justified in disputing the sale consideration u/s 50C without appreciating the factual position or making any reference to the Valuation Officer in terms of provisions of section 55A of the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C) - II vs. MIRA EXIM LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

55A), scheme of merger or amalgamation is not treated as transfer. The respondent assessee cannot^and should not be allowed depreciation on the motor cars. 8. We have, however, examined Explanation 7 to-Section 43(1) •and Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6). The two Explanations relate to computation of actual cost or written down value for the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. MIRA EXIM

55A), scheme of merger or amalgamation is not treated as transfer. The respondent assessee cannot^and should not be allowed depreciation on the motor cars. 8. We have, however, examined Explanation 7 to-Section 43(1) •and Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6). The two Explanations relate to computation of actual cost or written down value for the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C) - II vs. MIRA EXIM LTD.

55A), scheme of merger or amalgamation is not treated as transfer. The respondent assessee cannot^and should not be allowed depreciation on the motor cars. 8. We have, however, examined Explanation 7 to-Section 43(1) •and Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6). The two Explanations relate to computation of actual cost or written down value for the purpose

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (C) - II vs. MIRA EXIM LTD.

55A), scheme of merger or amalgamation is not treated as transfer. The respondent assessee cannot^and should not be allowed depreciation on the motor cars. 8. We have, however, examined Explanation 7 to-Section 43(1) •and Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6). The two Explanations relate to computation of actual cost or written down value for the purpose

SH. ANIL JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Vs. Dcit, Circle -5(1), New Delhi Sh. Anil Jain, B- 2/18, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aaipj2615C (Appellant) (Respondent)

price of asset transferred, there is no necessity of computing fair market value and hence AO could not have referred the matter to the Valuation Officer”. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that the reference under section 55A

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S GYAN ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

price or the time for delivery of goods or both is postponed. The physical delivery of goods is not an essential ingredient of sale. (b) It is not the case where the assessee simply intended to transfer the shares of a particular company, but through this agreement the assessee was intended to transfer the immovable property held by the company

SH. VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

transfer of any property in terms of Section 2 (47) of the Act. It was further held that "there was no material for the Assessing Officer to have reason to believe that the agreement to sell had been entered into in the assessment year 1990-91". 32.5 In the appeal by the Revenue, the Supreme Court reversed the decision

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VALMIK THAPAR, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

transfer of any property in terms of Section 2 (47) of the Act. It was further held that "there was no material for the Assessing Officer to have reason to believe that the agreement to sell had been entered into in the assessment year 1990-91". 32.5 In the appeal by the Revenue, the Supreme Court reversed the decision

SHRI VALMIK THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are disposed of by this common order as indicated above

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Acit, 19, Kautilya Marg, Circle-53(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Valmik Thapar, Vs. Dcit, M/S. R. N. Khanna & Company, Ca, Circle-32(1), 14-15F, Shivam House, Connaught New Delhi Place, New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Shri Valmik Thapar, Circle-53(1), 19, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aacpt7098K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Senior Advocate Along With Shri Shailesh Gupta, Shri Mahur Agarwal, Advocates Revenue By: Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2021 (Last Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2021. O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 1. These Are Three Appeals For Two Assessment Years Pertaining To One Assessee, Mr. Valmik Thapar, A Resident, Individual [Assessee]. Assessee Filed Ita Number

transfer of any property in terms of Section 2 (47) of the Act. It was further held that "there was no material for the Assessing Officer to have reason to believe that the agreement to sell had been entered into in the assessment year 1990-91". 32.5 In the appeal by the Revenue, the Supreme Court reversed the decision

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)

price as per the share purchase agreement entered between the assessee and Isuzu Motors Ltd., Japan being two unrelated parties. The assessee had specifically contended that the transfer was made under an agreement. In other words, the Ld. AR contended that the assessee had transferred the shares under an agreement entered between the assessee and unrelated parties and as such

M/S. VIRTUAL SOFTWARE & TRAINING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -17(4), M/S. Virtual Software & Training Pvt. Ltd., N-136, Panchsheel New Delhi Park, New Delhi Pan : Aaacv8390F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. L.K. Paonam, Ar; K.R. Shukla, Adv.; & Bhupendra Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 26/03/2013 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2001-02 Raising Various Grounds. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/09/2015, Which Were Admitted. The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under:

transferred its undertaking to M/s Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. (formerly known as “Suri Capital and Leasing Ltd”) against allotment of 45 lakh equity shares of the face value of Rs. 10 per share. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (for short “the Act”), the Assessing Officer treated the transaction as slump sale under

SHRI JASTINDER SINGH VEDI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Dcit, Circle-25(1), New Delhi Sh. Jastinder Singh Vedi, 24/55, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi Pan : Aaepv4136E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. R.S. Singhvi & Satyajit Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.02.2011Of Learned Cit(A)-Viii, New Delhi, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Lower Authorities Had Erred In Not Appreciating That The Plot Of Land No. A-2/204, Paschim Vihar, Delhi Measuring 167 Sq. Mtrs. Allotted By Dda In Public Auction On 11.3.2002 Was Not Comparable To The First Floor Of House No. 37, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi Especially When The Ground Floor & The Second Floor Of The Said Property Belonged To Others. 2. The Lower Authorities Had Erred In Not Appreciating That The One- Third Share Of The First Floor Of House No. 37, Punjabi Bagh (West) Belonged To The Appellant Whereas Two-Third Share Of The Said Flat Belonged To His Wife & The Long-Term Capital Loss In Respect Of The Two-Third Share From The Sale Of The Said Floor Has Been Accepted By The Department.

55A was without jurisdiction. In the instant case, it is evident that the Assessing Officer did not invoke the provision of Section 50C of the Act and referred the matter to the Valuation Officer without observing the procedures laid in Section 50C(2) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) referred the Section 50C of the Act but held that