M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

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

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

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

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

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

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

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 on sale of Punjab Khor land claimed it exempt u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. 4.1 That the ld. CIT (A) has wrongly invoked the powers u/s 251 of the Act to enhance the assessment without appreciating the fact that the said section cannot be pressed to substitute the view/decision of the assessing officer. 4.2 That

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains arising from the sale of loose diamonds and the said issue since the subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A), decision on the said issue is squarely out of the jurisdiction that the Ld. PCIT in terms of the mandatory provision of Clause C of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. In this regard

DCIT, CC, GZBD , GZBD vs. ANJALI MITTAL , GZBD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain is Rs. 14,93,596/- {Rs. 28,94,757 (-) Rs. 14,01,161/-}. 6.8 In the light of these observations, relief of Rs. 14,01,161/- is allowed and the disallowance of Rs. 28,94,757/- is restricted to Rs. 14,93,596/-. The grounds of appeal of the appellant relating to this disallowance of claim of exemption

MUKUL RANI THAKUR,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

Capital Gain (“LTCG”) and made addition of INR 97,37,300/ and made addition of INR 97,37,300/- at estimated sale at estimated sale consideration based on kachchi parchi consideration based on kachchi parchi. The income was accordingly . The income was accordingly, assessed at INR 1,04,36,200/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. As per para

DCIT CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. MDLR ESTATES PVT.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

seizure operation was conducted at the business premises of M/s MDLR group of companies on 31.01.2008. Pursuant to the search operation, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 7. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 79,71,38,532/- on account of alleged short term capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. M.M. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

seizure operation was conducted at the business premises of M/s MDLR group of companies on 31.01.2008. Pursuant to the search operation, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 7. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 79,71,38,532/- on account of alleged short term capital gain

NITIN JOHARI ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

In the result, the issues on the merits as raised vide ground nos

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Nitin Johari, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3, 2Nd A-15, Floor, Sadhna New Delhi Enclave, South Delhi, New Delhi – 110 017 Pan No. Aajpj4136D (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains on sale of shares of M/s Anukaran Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in holding that there is no infirmity in the assessment order on account of non availability of cross examination. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the original return of income

RENU SINGH,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

capital gains, the assessee preferred appeal before the the Ld.CIT(A). The CIT(A) however, also declined any wever, also declined any relief on the additions so made by the AO. relief on the additions so made by the AO. 7. Further aggrieved, assessee filed appeal befo assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. e the Tribunal. 8. When the matter

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

Search & seizure operation have been carried out by Director of Investigation Kolkata and Ahmadabad unearthing entry scam of Long term Capital Gains

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

Search & seizure operation have been carried out by Director of Investigation Kolkata and Ahmadabad unearthing entry scam of Long term Capital Gains

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

Search & seizure operation have been carried out by Director of Investigation Kolkata and Ahmadabad unearthing entry scam of Long term Capital Gains

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. MANISH UPPAL, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

seizure action was carried out at Locker No. 392 held with M/s Alaknanda Lockers, Saket Delhi on 11.01.2017 u/s 132(1) of the Act. In pursuance to said search action, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued and assessee filed his return of income on 22.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 7,15,41,203/-. Thereafter assessment u/s 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ARCHANA DALMIA, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3998/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2014-15) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 52(1), 14Th Floor, E-2 Block Civic Centre, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 11002 बनाम Vs. Archana Dalmia, 3, Sikandra Road, Kalmia House, New Delhi ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aagpd-7794-N Assessee By : S/Shri Kunal Agarwal, Chartered Accountant & Manish Agarwal, Advocate Department By: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 10/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2024, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Sold 23,500 Shares Of Durga Enterprises P. Ltd., During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal To Pyramid Commodities (P) Ltd. (Unrelated Party) For A Total Consideration Of Rs.19,97,50,000/-. The Assessee Suffered Long Term

seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was carried out in the case of PMC Fin Corp Group on 11.10.2018. During the course of search Raj Kumar Modi, Director cum operator of the company in his statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act admitted that the shares