ANIL KUMAR,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), GURGAON, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2909/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities focused on the quantum of the claim rather than specific material evidence to deem the set-off claim as non-genuine. The disallowance of the assessee's set-off of loss was found to be without merit and was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee earned short term capital gains of Rs.10,91,096/- from the sale of shares in various entities. However, the assessee also incurred a loss of Rs.12,15,050/- from Midland Poly, and the lower authorities denied the set off of this loss.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of set off of short-term capital loss was justified based on the quantum of the claim or specific material evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 02.06.2025Pronounced: 02.06.2025

Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Anil Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, J-10, South City-1, Ward-1(2), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAMPK9521G Assessee by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051458946(1) dated 28.03.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee have derived short term capital gains from sale of shares in various entities of Rs.10,91,096/-, on the one hand, and further denied set off of his corresponding losses of Rs.12,15,050/- for the precise reason given even in para (xvi)

Anil Kumar page 15 of the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 reading as under: “xvi) The assessee has earned an overall gain from MCX, Pro Fin Cap, Sharp Trade and Sundarammul at Rs.10,91,096/- and shown loss of Rs.12,15,050/- from Midland Poly. The resultant gain from four companies and the resultant Loss from Midland Poly is nearly the same amount so that the assessee does not have to pay anything. It appears that these are all appears to be accommodation entries.”

4.

That being the case, it is crystal clear that both the learned lower authorities have more gone by quantum of the impugned claim than having arrived at any specific material thereby holding the set off claim as non-genuine. I accordingly find no merit in the impugned disallowance of the assessee’s set off of loss made by the learned lower authorities which is hereby deleted.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →