RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit before the transfer (issuing cheque to Ruby Singh) of amount of Rs.75 21 Lakh in the Bank A/c of the assessee. Further, on the perusal of IT of Sh. Singh it is revealed that no substantial income declared by the Sh. Singh in his ROl in three previous years from the year under consideration. UMEED SINGH(APUPS2619J

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit before the transfer (issuing cheque to Ruby Singh) of amount of Rs.75 21 Lakh in the Bank A/c of the assessee. Further, on the perusal of IT of Sh. Singh it is revealed that no substantial income declared by the Sh. Singh in his ROl in three previous years from the year under consideration. UMEED SINGH(APUPS2619J

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit before the transfer (issuing cheque to Ruby Singh) of amount of Rs.75 21 Lakh in the Bank A/c of the assessee. Further, on the perusal of IT of Sh. Singh it is revealed that no substantial income declared by the Sh. Singh in his ROl in three previous years from the year under consideration. UMEED SINGH(APUPS2619J

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit before the transfer (issuing cheque to Ruby Singh) of amount of Rs.75 21 Lakh in the Bank A/c of the assessee. Further, on the perusal of IT of Sh. Singh it is revealed that no substantial income declared by the Sh. Singh in his ROl in three previous years from the year under consideration. UMEED SINGH(APUPS2619J

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit before the transfer (issuing cheque to Ruby Singh) of amount of Rs.75 21 Lakh in the Bank A/c of the assessee. Further, on the perusal of IT of Sh. Singh it is revealed that no substantial income declared by the Sh. Singh in his ROl in three previous years from the year under consideration. UMEED SINGH(APUPS2619J

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

cash deposit before the transfer (issuing cheque to Ruby Singh) of amount of Rs.75 21 Lakh in the Bank A/c of the assessee. Further, on the perusal of IT of Sh. Singh it is revealed that no substantial income declared by the Sh. Singh in his ROl in three previous years from the year under consideration. UMEED SINGH(APUPS2619J

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 :-

Gain depending upon the treatment of various shares for the purpose of pure investment or not. Whatever the method adopted by the assessee, the same has to be followed consistently. The ld CIT(A) has considered the various circulars particularly Circular no 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016, which has settled the issues under consideration. Therefore we do not see any reason

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

capital account however in the appellant's case the sales made during the demonetization period are evidenced with sale insaices (pe 131-14 of 15) and sales ais placed pg. 145- 152 of 715) etc. iv) All invoices are between Rs. It is submitted that no addition, can 155.570- to Rs. 1,99,775, ie, below Rs. be male solely

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

cash deposits and disallowance of Rs. 11,49,116/- being capital gain amount not deposited in bank. 4. The assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8 , NEW DELHI vs. NAGENDER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

cash deposits in the bank account with Punjab National Bank of Rs.13,60,000/-. This addition was also based on information from Individual Transaction Statement (ITS). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by a consolidated order for Assessment Year 2009-10 and other captioned assessment years examined the issue and granted relief

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8 , NEW DELHI vs. NAGENDER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

cash deposits in the bank account with Punjab National Bank of Rs.13,60,000/-. This addition was also based on information from Individual Transaction Statement (ITS). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by a consolidated order for Assessment Year 2009-10 and other captioned assessment years examined the issue and granted relief

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8 , NEW DELHI vs. NAGENDER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

cash deposits in the bank account with Punjab National Bank of Rs.13,60,000/-. This addition was also based on information from Individual Transaction Statement (ITS). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by a consolidated order for Assessment Year 2009-10 and other captioned assessment years examined the issue and granted relief

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 8 , NEW DELHI vs. NAGENDER, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

cash deposits in the bank account with Punjab National Bank of Rs.13,60,000/-. This addition was also based on information from Individual Transaction Statement (ITS). 6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) by a consolidated order for Assessment Year 2009-10 and other captioned assessment years examined the issue and granted relief

RAJENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

capital gain is to be deposited within time prescribed u/s 54(2) of the Act and there is no mandate that the same very amount should be deposited, because there cannot be such legal mandate as there can never be any direct link as such. Secondly, the section itself permits that a property can be acquired well within 12 months

ITO,WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI vs. VINOD GUGNANI, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds of Appeal of the Revenue fails, consequently the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words if he want of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash

AVINASH CHAUDHRY,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

deposit, received from his grandfather and out of cash withdrawals from the bank of assessee, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,58,117/- allegedly

SHRI DEVENDER HANS,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

cash deposited as capital gain in that year. 3. That having assessed the cash deposit as capital gains in the subsequent

MS ANJU MAHAJAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2918/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ms. Anju Mahajan, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/6, 1St Floor, Rajouri Garden, Ward-33(3), New Delhi-110027 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm2446M Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.04.2022

Capital Gain and income from other sources. Cash Deposit: 3. Information has been received by the revenue from Oriental Bank