EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

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

Capital Gain as per Income Tax Act 1961 as\nper Article 13(A) of DTAA, the same is added back to the income of the\nassessee. The penalty

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain for Rs.17,13,015/- is\nadded to the income of the assessee has not declared in its return. In\nview of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that\nthe assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of its\nincome, therefore, penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE 52(1), NEW DELHI vs. BHUPINDER SINGH BHALLA, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land on ground\nthat purchaser of land was a builder and thus, sald piece of land was not\nagricultural land, since view taken by Assessing Officer while rejecting\nassessee's claim was not in consonance with requirements made under\nsection 54B, Impugned order passed by him was to be set aside.\"\nHence, once

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

capital Gain earned by the assessee on sale of scrip of M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd during FY2014-15 is genuine and eligible for benefit of section 10(38) of IT Act, 1961? 2. The company M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd, its promoter directors and other entities were investigated by SEBI for market manipulation and fraudulent trading in violation of Prevention

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), if the capital gain is treated as a long term capital gain.” 3. Brief

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gains so computed by the AO/DRP is not in accordance with law. Other grounds 19. That in the view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the documents, explanations filed by the Assessee and the material available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and has been wrongly ignored. The addition made, thus

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gains so computed by the AO/DRP is not in accordance with law. Other grounds 19. That in the view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the documents, explanations filed by the Assessee and the material available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and has been wrongly ignored. The addition made, thus

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

capital gains so computed by the AO/DRP is not in accordance with law. Other grounds 19. That in the view of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the documents, explanations filed by the Assessee and the material available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and has been wrongly ignored. The addition made, thus

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

capital gain the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income for which penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)( c) are initiated

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

capital gain the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income for which penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)( c) are initiated

SARVA CAPITAL LLC,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

gains of Rs. 163,26,34,468 on sale of shares of Suryoday Small Finance Bank, Disha Medical Services, Rural Shores Business Services, Veritas under section 112 of the Act, as against under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. b. Taxing interest income of Rs.30,00,000/- as per provisions of the Act as against under Article

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

Capital Gain out of these purported share sale receipts during the financial year 2015-16 (A.Y. 2016-17) in his computation of total income (taxable at the rate of 60% as provided u/s 115BBE). This would resultant of addition of Rs. 3.03,05,713/- in the total income of the assessee. Penalty

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

Capital Gain out of these purported share sale receipts during the financial year 2015-16 (A.Y. 2016-17) in his computation of total income (taxable at the rate of 60% as provided u/s 115BBE). This would resultant of addition of Rs. 3.03,05,713/- in the total income of the assessee. Penalty

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PNB FINANCE & INDUSTRIES LTD

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

capital gain as declared by the assessee company.” On the basis of aforesaid reasoning, the assessing officer assessed the tax at Rs.3,25,82,805/- and initiated penalty

ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain being charged to income tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,- i. ……………… ii ……………….. 5.9.1 In the result, inter alia as shown above, it is held that the appellant is not entitled to deduction

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains or business income, as the case may be, in the impugned intervening assessment years, stand declined in very terms. The assessee’s 21 | P a g e . three appeals ITA No. 4387 & 4388/Del/2016 succeed and its last appeal ITA No. 7291/Del/2018 in assessment year 2015-16 is partly allowed, in very terms. 17. We now deal with

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gains or business income, as the case may be, in the impugned intervening assessment years, stand declined in very terms. The assessee’s 21 | P a g e . three appeals ITA No. 4387 & 4388/Del/2016 succeed and its last appeal ITA No. 7291/Del/2018 in assessment year 2015-16 is partly allowed, in very terms. 17. We now deal with

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

gains the AO is directed to workout the penalty.” 9. The above direction of Ld.CIT(A) is clear that penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of legal fiction of section 50C of the Act. He therefore, directed to work out the concealed capital