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)

bogus but brought to tax, gains arising from sale of shares as short term capital gains. This in our considered view, is also not of help as the Revenue in the instant case has come to the conclusive finding which attained finality that the transactions of purchase

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

bogus long term capital gain. Accordingly, the AO denied exemption under section 10(38) and brought alleged long term capital gain to tax under section 68. The Ld. CIT(A) decided against the assessee who brought the matter before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal held that when the assessee sold shares, working

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus\nclaim of long term capital gain. The assessee had purchased shares of the\ncompany for Rs.1 lakh and when the Investments in shares became eligible\nfor long term capital gain it was sold for Rs.29 lakhs during the period when\nthe general market trend was recessive. The AO opined that the shares of the\ncompany. X matched

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.

bogus Long Term Capital Gain. 17. After considering the entire gamut of facts and material on record and the submissions made by the parties, one important fact 16 which emerges from the record is that, the shares were purchased by the assessee in the Assessment Year 2012-13 for sum of Rs.1,25,000/- which has been sold

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

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

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

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 of the Act shall

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

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 of the Act shall

PRAVEEN RANJAN SINHA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Stay Application of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshpraveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Sa No. 57/Del/2024 (In Ita No. 399/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Praveen Ranjan Sinha, Vs. Dcit, Icb 141, The Icon, Dlf Circle-3(1), City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ardps3000N Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Adv Ms. Bhavya Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/07/2024

term capital gain, which was exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Notably, while computing such capital gain, the cost of acquisition of the bonus shares was taken as 'Nil' by application of the provisions of section 55(2)(aa)(iia) of the Act. The aforesaid position has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment, as asserted

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

term capital gain claimed on the sale of the shares of the above noted company prima facie appears as bogus. Thus, it is amply clear that the stake holders involved in these transactions were either bogus or devoid of any financial capabilities to make such investment and were conscious parties in this entire scheme and provided exit to the beneficiaries

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

term capital gain claimed on the sale of the shares of the above noted company prima facie appears as bogus. Thus, it is amply clear that the stake holders involved in these transactions were either bogus or devoid of any financial capabilities to make such investment and were conscious parties in this entire scheme and provided exit to the beneficiaries

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

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 has done

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)

Short term capital gains at Rs. 1,59,569/- In the assessment of the assessee completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 29.12.2016 the AO made the following two additions:- 1. Addition of Rs. 65,65,909/- being Long Term Capital gain on sale of 32500 Equity Shares of a listed company being Dhanleela Investments Limited

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

bogus claims of Long Term Capital Gain/Short\nTerm Capital Loss or any other sham transactions.\n5. It is reiterated that the above principles have been formulated with the sole\nobjective of reducing litigation and maintaining consistency in approach on\nthe issue of treatment of income derived from transfer of shares and\nsecurities. All the relevant provisions of the Act shall

JAINMATI JAIN,YOJANA VIHAR vs. ITO WARD 56(2) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrajainmati Jain Vs Ito C-513, Yojanavihar, Ward 56(2) New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Agkpj4857G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Tanya, Adv Revenue By Sh. Om Praksh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

bogus Long Term Capital Gain. 17. After considering the entire gamut of facts and material on record and the submissions made by the parties, one important fact which emerges from the record is that, the shares were purchased by the assessee in the Assessment Year 2012-13 for sum of Rs.1,25,000/- which has been sold in the impugned

MR RAHUL MISHRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIII NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed in limine

bogus claim of short term capital loss of Rs.4,52,00,000/- on sale of shares which was set off to reduce the long term capital gains of Rs.4,42,98,700/- on sale of shares in the original return filed on 31.10.2007. . . . 2. The original return filed on 31st October, 2007 was revised by a return filed electronically

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