G N INTERNATIONAL P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarg. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji Circle-10(2), Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Dcit, Vs. G. N. International Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-4, 3721/1, First Floor, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabcg4491K Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Dadhur Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025

demonetization period. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from rent, sale of shares, interest, dividend and long-term capital gains

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarsubhash Chand Gupta Vs. Acit, B-41, Kailash Colony, Central Circle – 29, New Delhi – 110 054 New Delhi Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit, Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta Central Circle – 29, 43/1M Rajpur Road, New Delhi Civil Lines, North Delhi, New Delhi – 110 054 Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Revenue By: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2529/Del/2022 & Ita 1. No.1557/Del/2021 For Ays 2015-16 & 2017-18, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New

Capital Gains from transactions on which securities Transaction Tax is Paid” in Schedule “Details of Exempt Income”. Information from the Insight portal revealed that the company M/s. Sunstar Realty Development Ltd. had issued shares to a few related persons and entities such as M/s. Sarvottam Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Massive Massive Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (now known

ACIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. SUBHASH CHNAD GUPTA, DELHI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarsubhash Chand Gupta Vs. Acit, B-41, Kailash Colony, Central Circle – 29, New Delhi – 110 054 New Delhi Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Acit, Vs. Subhash Chand Gupta Central Circle – 29, 43/1M Rajpur Road, New Delhi Civil Lines, North Delhi, New Delhi – 110 054 Pan: Aaapg 2554 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Revenue By: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 14/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: The Appeals In Ita Nos. 2529/Del/2022 & Ita 1. No.1557/Del/2021 For Ays 2015-16 & 2017-18, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New

Capital Gains from transactions on which securities Transaction Tax is Paid” in Schedule “Details of Exempt Income”. Information from the Insight portal revealed that the company M/s. Sunstar Realty Development Ltd. had issued shares to a few related persons and entities such as M/s. Sarvottam Advisory Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Massive Massive Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. (now known

NAVNEET GARG,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD- 43(7), DELHI

In the result Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed in the above terms

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year: 2017-18

demonetization period. This issue of the Assessee Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The next issue in this appeal of Assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A), confirming the disallowance of claim of exemption of indexation cost of construction for an amount of Rs. 1,09,54,020/- while computing the same under the head

DR. PRIYA NARULA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD INT. TAX 2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains. 14. We find that the impugned cash was deposited during the demonetization period 10.11.2016 to 05.12.2016, table of which

RAM KISHORE SETH,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmalate Shri Ram Kishore Seth, Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Through Legal Heir, Smt. Rama Seth), New Delhi. Nd-63, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Ejips0799P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date Of Order : 09.12.2025 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)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 16.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

Capital Gains- 1) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating either the facts and in the circumstances of the case or the submissions of the applicant. He has further erred in passing an order which is bad in law and on facts. 2). The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption U/S 54/54F

SHUBHAM YADAV L/H OF VIJAY PAL YADAV,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-2(4), MEERUT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1075 & 1076/Del/2025, A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2017-18 Shubham Yadav Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Vijay Pal Yadav, Ward-2(4), 145, B.C. Lines, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Meerut- 250001 Bhainsali Ground, Meerut, Pan: Aaapy8828J Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Raj Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Gouranga Chandra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

capital gains and unexplained investments. But the assessee failed to ensure any compliance of statutory notices; therefore, the AO had no option except to complete the assessment ex parte under section 147/144 of the Act. The reopened assessment was completed at income of Rs.1,99,68,489/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal

SHUBHAM YADAV L/H VIJAY PAL YADAV,MEERUT vs. ITO,WARD-1(2)(4), MEERUT

In the result, both appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.1075 & 1076/Del/2025, A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2017-18 Shubham Yadav Income Tax Officer, L/H Of Vijay Pal Yadav, Ward-2(4), 145, B.C. Lines, Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Meerut- 250001 Bhainsali Ground, Meerut, Pan: Aaapy8828J Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Raj Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Gouranga Chandra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

capital gains and unexplained investments. But the assessee failed to ensure any compliance of statutory notices; therefore, the AO had no option except to complete the assessment ex parte under section 147/144 of the Act. The reopened assessment was completed at income of Rs.1,99,68,489/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal

MADHURI ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-4, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18 Madhuri Enterprises Vs. Pcit-4 Private Limited New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Pan :..Aaacm8923F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sandeep Goel, Advocate, Kapil Goel, Advocate Department By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit, Dr

demonetization period. Accordingly notice under Section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 27.12.2019 accepting the return submitted by the assessee without making any addition. 3. Learned PCIT on examination of case records, observed that assessee has sold an immovable property of Rs. 2.25 crores. He claimed

PREETI BHARDWAJ,K - vs. ITO WARD 29(3), CIVIC CENTRE

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18

Capital gains and Other sources. Subsequently, the case of the appellant was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of payment of tax in cash and thereafter, an assessment order dated / 12/2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed after making the aggregate 3 addition of Rs. 29, 60000 / (- o) * n the alleged ground of unexplained money

LAXMI AGGARWAL,BALLABGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyalaxmi Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (4), Hn – 18, Ward 5, Faridabad. Brahmin Wara, Ballabgarh – 121 004 (Haryana). (Pan : Byppa0703G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Order : 12.02.2024

demonetization period. The AO was not convinced with the assessee's explanation. The AO noted that there was huge gap of 8 months between the cash withdrawn and cash deposited. The AO also mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence regarding the money kept at for 8 months and the same money

ACIT, CIRCLE - 34(1), DELHI vs. PANKAJ KALRA, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Royacit, Vs. Pankaj Kalra, Circle-34(1), A-28, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Amqpk6707N

demonetization that he was in receipt of cash gifts on various auspicious occasions, the Learned CITA considering the status of the Assessee and on the ground of reasonableness had granted 50% relief there on. The relief granted to the Assessee works out to Rs 2,90,290/- which, in our considered opinion, is very reasonable and meets the ends

RAJ KUMAR KAPOOR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE UJWAL KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 50(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

demonetization period. The source of cash deposits is treated as explained. 10. We also notice that the assessee has filed exhaustive papers by way of summary of transactions with Punjab National Bank in the realization of FDR papers, statement of Affairs showing capital gain

RAJ KUMAR KAPOOR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE UJWAL KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 50(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

demonetization period. The source of cash deposits is treated as explained. 10. We also notice that the assessee has filed exhaustive papers by way of summary of transactions with Punjab National Bank in the realization of FDR papers, statement of Affairs showing capital gain

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

capital gains and income from other sources. If an item of income falls under one head, it cannot be shifted to another head merely because of the AO's approach in taxing the same at a higher rate. Where the nature and source of the transactions are spelt out, the source of income would stand explained. In such situations

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

capital gains and income from other sources. If an item of income falls under one head, it cannot be shifted to another head merely because of the AO's approach in taxing the same at a higher rate. Where the nature and source of the transactions are spelt out, the source of income would stand explained. In such situations

JAGDISH PRASHAD GUPTA,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. JCIT RANGE 1(1), MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Jagdish Prashad Gupta, Vs. Jcit, 580/227, Bhartiya Colony, Range 1(1), New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh – 251 001. Pan: Ahbpg9897R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

demonetization period. As per the assessee, cash deposit of Rs.9,80,000/- belonged to the amount of sale consideration of immovable property as on 06.11.2016 in old currency. As the assessee accepted cash above Rs.20,000/- in violation of section 269SS of the Act, the case was referred to Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax for appropriate action. On the basis

SANT LAL AGGARWAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessmentyear:2017-18

capital gain, income from house property and income from other sources, and accordingly, the appellant filed his return of income on 31.12.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 16,58,720/-. Copy of the acknowledgement of return of income alongwith computation of income has been placed at pages 1-49 of PB. 3 It is submitted that the assessee maintains books