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

short term capital asset. 19. As regards the contention of assessee that since what the assessee has transferred is merely interest/right in shares and 16 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 not the shares itself, therefore, situs of such interest/right over the shares being situated outside India is not taxable in India, learned Departmental Representative drew our attention

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)

short span of six- seven months at the rate varying from Rs. 47.75 paise to Rs. 55. These shares were purchased through a broker, Munish Arora & Co. and sold through another broker, M/s SK Sharma & Co. The AO was taken by surprise by the astronomical rise in share price of a company from Rs. 3 to Rs. 55 and started

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

Short Term Capital Gains - 3 Total Taxable Income under head Long Term Capital Gains (Exempt) - Listed (229,185,105) 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

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

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

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

transfer in order that the same can be held to be a long term capital asset. The benefit of Section 54EC is available only in respect of capital gains arising on sale of a long term capital asset. Since the building was held to be a short term capital asset by the Assessing Officer, the benefit of deduction under Section

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

short or 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

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

short term capital gain on sale of depreciable assets as long term capital gain on sale of shares. On the basis of above information, I record my satisfaction u/s 151(2), on the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer, that income to the extent of Rs. 14,25,24,594/- has escaped assessment in the case of Sangita Kshetry

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

short term capital gain on sale of depreciable assets as long term capital gain on sale of shares. On the basis of above information, I record my satisfaction u/s 151(2), on the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer, that income to the extent of Rs. 14,25,24,594/- has escaped assessment in the case of Sangita Kshetry

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

short term capital gain on sale of depreciable assets as long term capital gain on sale of shares. On the basis of above information, I record my satisfaction u/s 151(2), on the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer, that income to the extent of Rs. 14,25,24,594/- has escaped assessment in the case of Sangita Kshetry

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

short listing of pre-qualified bidders by AAI, issue of RFP to pre-qualified bidder, Airport visits, site inspection and discussions with government agencies etc., Bidvest i.e. the ultimate holding company, was involved as member of the Consortium and not the Petitioner. That, it is only at Stage 2 of the bidding process that the Petitioner was substituted in place

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Short Term Capital of\nRs.54,39,625/- as the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee knew\nthat such transactions related to penny stock and therefore the assessee\ndid not disclose in his return of income and taxed the Long Term Capital\nGain ofRs.51,52,564/-, which was not contested by the assessee before\nthe ld. CIT(A).\n5. The Assessing

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

transfer would be considered as taxable under the\nhead “capital gains” if the assessee so desires, so long as the assessee does not\nchange the stand in subsequent years. The appellant has followed consistent\ntreatment of reflecting the investment in shares and mutual funds under the\nhead “investments” in the balance sheet for the preceding and succeeding\nyears. There

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

gains accrued to the assessee In short span, one has to examine the\nfinancials of the company whose shares were Inflated within a short period\nand after the sharp rise in the price of shares it again comes down. Upheld\ntaxation of LTCG from penny stocks.\n\n12. Chandan Gupta Vs CIT [2016] 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab &\nHaryana

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:-

short-term capital gain or long-term capital gain. Further, the assessee has taken the actual sale consideration as sale value, but, not the value assessable by the stamp valuation office for the purpose of stamp valuation and the actual consideration received by the assessee was less than the value assessable by the stamp valuation officer. 30. In our opinion

DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI vs. JARUL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Gain” as short term capital loss. Assessee further informed during the course of assessment proceedings that these share warrant were not transferable and hence could not be sold. As per aforesaid submission of the assessee, the share warrants were not transferable hence could not be sold. However, there is no reason as to why the assessee has not waited till

M/S. MADURA BIOTECH (P) LTD.,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

term capital loss occurred. We find that there were instances where the holding was of 1 to 8 days and the lot was also as small as of 36 shares. 7. Thus, whatever has been asserted on behalf of the assessee by the ld. AR does not hold good. There is no substance in the contention that merely because

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)

Gain (STCG) on sale of shares, namely, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL). It was observed that loss on sale of the shares was due to issue of bonus shares of these companies. He observed that assessee had sold shares after receiving the bonus shares and claimed the Short Term Capital Loss, claimed