VIPIN JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

purchased the shares of Alps Motors Finance Limited were run by him and have been used to provide accommodation entry for bogus LTCG. Entirely based or this statement, the assessee’s Long term capital gain

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 :-

Long Term Capital Gain and Circular no.04/2007 dated 15th June, 2007 with regard to Short Term Capital Gain, the ground of appeal is allowed as the Ld. Assessing Officer has erroneously treated the Gain from share/mutual funds as Business Income amounting to Rs.36,79,65,338/- hence the Ld. Assessing Officer is being directed to treat the Gain from share/mutual

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

Bogus refund claim of Rs.102 crores and misrepresentation of facts by Nikesh Arora:- In this para the applicant stated the brief history of Sh. Nikesh Arora, his employer and transactions related to shares of M/s 2 | P a g e AY: 2017-18 Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (SNAPDEAL) and ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Ola). Therefore, no comments are required

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)

purchase of shares of the company are nothing but sham transactions undertaken with the purpose of obtaining bogus long-term capital gains

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

long term capital gain in India. 5.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, in doing so, the learned DRP/AO have roped in the concept of “beneficial I.T.A.No.1568/Del/2022 ownership”, which is completely absent in Article 13 of India - Mauritius DTAA and further, though have accepted that Assessee is a resident of Mauritius but have concluded that the assessee

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

purchased by any of the 18 exit providers mentioned in the list of the investigation wing, it would have been conclusively proved that assessee has obtained bogus long-term capital gain

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

purchased by any of the 18 exit providers mentioned in the list of the investigation wing, it would have been conclusively proved that assessee has obtained bogus long-term capital gain

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

purchased shares of CSL @ Rs. 10/- per share and 23 after one year sold the same at Rs. 476/- to Rs. 503/- per share. The AO found that CSL had been duly investigated by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and found that the same was a bogus company engaged in arranging for bogus long term capital gain

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

bogus claims of Long Term Capital Gain / Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. 5. It is reiterated that the above principles have been formulated with the sole objective of reducing litigation and maintaining consistency in approach on the issue of treatment of income derived from transfer of shares and securities. All the relevant provisions

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)

purchase and sale of shares are arranged transactions to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt long term capital gain

ARUNIMA ADCON SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

bogus claims of Long Term Capital Gain / Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. 5. It is reiterated that the above principles have been formulated with t he sale objective of reducing litigation and maintaining consistency in approach on the issue of treatment of income derived from transfer of shares and securities. All the relevant provisions

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RADHARANI ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

bogus claims of Long Term Capital Gain / Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. 5. It is reiterated that the above principles have been formulated with t he sale objective of reducing litigation and maintaining consistency in approach on the issue of treatment of income derived from transfer of shares and securities. All the relevant provisions

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

long-term capital loss of Rs.219,70,90,370 declared by the assessee after claiming benefit of indexation. Similarly, short term capital gain of Rs. 6,90,68,982 has also assessed as business income by the assessing officer. The aforesaid re-characterization of income made by the assessing officer is erroneous and cannot be sustained for the following reasons

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

long-term capital loss of Rs.219,70,90,370 declared by the assessee after claiming benefit of indexation. Similarly, short term capital gain of Rs. 6,90,68,982 has also assessed as business income by the assessing officer. The aforesaid re-characterization of income made by the assessing officer is erroneous and cannot be sustained for the following reasons

RIAZ MUNSHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16

bogus long term capital gain assessee must have paid commission to operator/brokers, the Assessing Officer added back commission expenditure of Rs.4,85,120 under Section 69C of the Act. Contesting the aforesaid addition, though, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he was unsuccessful. 4. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer

DENESH KUMAR SACHDEVA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-56(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

purchasing of the scrips of JPIL. The assessing officer has reproduced the relevant parts of the statements of a number of such brokers to delineate the modus operandi of providing bogus long term capital gain

DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

purchasing of the scrips of JPIL. The assessing officer has reproduced the relevant parts of the statements of a number of such brokers to delineate the modus operandi of providing bogus long term capital gain

DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

purchasing of the scrips of JPIL. The assessing officer has reproduced the relevant parts of the statements of a number of such brokers to delineate the modus operandi of providing bogus long term capital gain