DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KRISHNA SHRIRAM, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain or business income. The circulars cited by the AR are applicable in the present case. In view of the above, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 14. Further in regard to the gift received by the assessee of Rs.7.92 crores, the findings reached

M/S. SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

capital assets namely Aravalli Farm Houses, Gopalpur lands, Lohari lands were not actually used for educational/ charitable purposes in the year under appeal and thus, such investment is hit by Section 11(1B) and alternatively by Section 11(3) of the I.T. Act. The assessee-society was holding 24 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

capital assets namely Aravalli Farm Houses, Gopalpur lands, Lohari lands were not actually used for educational/ charitable purposes in the year under appeal and thus, such investment is hit by Section 11(1B) and alternatively by Section 11(3) of the I.T. Act. The assessee-society was holding 24 ITA.No.4944 & 4430/Del./2012 The Scientific and Educational Advancement Society, Gurgaon

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. DLF QUTAB ENCLAVE COMPLEX EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

capital gain in terms of section 45 read with section 12 of the Act by assessing the total income at Rs.25,25,99,150/-. 3. Assessee carried the matter by way of filing appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of challenging the impugned

DAYA BANSAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 48(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.” 6.1 If objectively and dispassionately section 68 of the Act is dissected following would be key ingredients of the same: 6.1.1 Firstly is requires that “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year” that is there is a “sum” found

AMITABH BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.” 6.1 If objectively and dispassionately section 68 of the Act is dissected following would be key ingredients of the same: 6.1.1 Firstly is requires that “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year” that is there is a “sum” found

ANJUL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.” 6.1 If objectively and dispassionately section 68 of the Act is dissected following would be key ingredients of the same: 6.1.1 Firstly is requires that “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year” that is there is a “sum” found

NASEEM ZAFAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-46(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.” 6.1 If objectively and dispassionately section 68 of the Act is dissected following would be key ingredients of the same: 6.1.1 Firstly is requires that “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year” that is there is a “sum” found

NASEEM SAAD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-46(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.” 6.1 If objectively and dispassionately section 68 of the Act is dissected following would be key ingredients of the same: 6.1.1 Firstly is requires that “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year” that is there is a “sum” found

NAZIA ZAFAR,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

capital company as referred to in clause (23FB) of section 10.” 6.1 If objectively and dispassionately section 68 of the Act is dissected following would be key ingredients of the same: 6.1.1 Firstly is requires that “Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year” that is there is a “sum” found

M/S. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,UTTAR PRADESH vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: -- Greater Noida Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, H-169, Chitvan Estate, Lucknow. Sector-Gamma, Gr. Noida City, District – Gautam Budh Nagar. Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalg0129L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: - - Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Vs. Cit(E), Authority, First Floor, Commercial Complex, Lucknow. P-2, Sector-Omega 1, Greater Noida Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (Pan: Aaalt0341D) Assessee By: S/Shri Balbir Singh & Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv., Sk Gupta & Ms. Raj Rani, Cas. Department By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02 .03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:

capital gain, income from other sources or from business or trade carried on by the authority in respect of a previous year.” After the amendment, the Explanation defines ‘Local Authority’ to include only the authorities mentioned in the Explanation which only include Panchayat, District Board, Municipal Committee and Cantonment Board with effect from 01.04.2003. The learned CIT(E) also observed