TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

4 in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Was there a capital gain under Section 45? 59. The last question that requires to be addressed whether there could be said to be any capital gains under Section 45 of the Act? In light of the above discussion, the question will have to be answered in favour

TELETUBE ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

4 in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Was there a capital gain under Section 45? 59. The last question that requires to be addressed whether there could be said to be any capital gains under Section 45 of the Act? In light of the above discussion, the question will have to be answered in favour

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain. 3. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 18th November, 2015 at the premises of the Assessee {being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives} as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) on the same date, wherein

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain. 3. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 18th November, 2015 at the premises of the Assessee {being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives} as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) on the same date, wherein

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain. 3. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 18th November, 2015 at the premises of the Assessee {being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives} as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) on the same date, wherein

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain. 3. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 18th November, 2015 at the premises of the Assessee {being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives} as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) on the same date, wherein

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain. 3. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 18th November, 2015 at the premises of the Assessee {being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives} as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) on the same date, wherein

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain. 3. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 18th November, 2015 at the premises of the Assessee {being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives} as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) on the same date, wherein

PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 vs. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF)

capital gain. 3. A search was conducted u/s. 132 on 18th November, 2015 at the premises of the Assessee {being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives} as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s. 132(4) on the same date, wherein

SHRI BALAJI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, FARIDABAD

Accordingly, the present appeals, along with all pending applications, are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5744/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Ita No. 5745/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 5752/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Balaji (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Vpo Badshahpur, Near Arya Samaj Central Circle-1, Mandir, Gurgaon-122017 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccs5328Q Assessee By: Sh. Anshul Mittal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 5744, 5745 & 5752/Del/2024, For Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S Orders Dated 21St & 22Nd October, 2024 Passed In Case Nos. 10964/2018-19, 10827/2019-20 & 10090/2020-21, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

4. The Revenue is aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order and has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act, proposing the following questions of law: a. Whether the ITAT is justified in deleting the additions made on account of bogus long term capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises

SHRI BALAJI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

Accordingly, the present appeals, along with all pending applications, are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5744/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Ita No. 5745/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 5752/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Balaji (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Vpo Badshahpur, Near Arya Samaj Central Circle-1, Mandir, Gurgaon-122017 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccs5328Q Assessee By: Sh. Anshul Mittal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 5744, 5745 & 5752/Del/2024, For Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S Orders Dated 21St & 22Nd October, 2024 Passed In Case Nos. 10964/2018-19, 10827/2019-20 & 10090/2020-21, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

4. The Revenue is aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order and has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act, proposing the following questions of law: a. Whether the ITAT is justified in deleting the additions made on account of bogus long term capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises

SHRI BALAJI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, FARIDABAD

Accordingly, the present appeals, along with all pending applications, are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5744/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Ita No. 5745/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Ita No. 5752/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Balaji (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Vpo Badshahpur, Near Arya Samaj Central Circle-1, Mandir, Gurgaon-122017 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccs5328Q Assessee By: Sh. Anshul Mittal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals Ita Nos. 5744, 5745 & 5752/Del/2024, For Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, Arise Against The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon’S Orders Dated 21St & 22Nd October, 2024 Passed In Case Nos. 10964/2018-19, 10827/2019-20 & 10090/2020-21, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

4. The Revenue is aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned order and has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act, proposing the following questions of law: a. Whether the ITAT is justified in deleting the additions made on account of bogus long term capital gain on the ground that the evidences found during search at the premises

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. PSK FINANCE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

capital gains declared by Shri Jai Shiv Saxena (including the undisclosed cash consideration of Rs.4,58,29,664/-) as income of the Shri Saxena on the basis of the declaration given by Shri Saxena in his statement dated 11.09.2015. The copies of the impugned asst, orders passed in the case of Shri Jai Shiv Saxena for A.Y.2013

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income