SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4 Short-term capital gain are located to RS. 1.27 individuals for Prannoy Roy and Mrs Radhika Roy for assessment year 2009 – 10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4 Short-term capital gain are located to RS. 1.27 individuals for Prannoy Roy and Mrs Radhika Roy for assessment year 2009 – 10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4 Short-term capital gain are located to RS. 1.27 individuals for Prannoy Roy and Mrs Radhika Roy for assessment year 2009 – 10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

4 Short-term capital gain are located to RS. 1.27 individuals for Prannoy Roy and Mrs Radhika Roy for assessment year 2009 – 10 in equal ratio to both The long-term capital gain/short-term capital gain accrued to Mrs Radhika Roy for FY 2008 – 09 needs to be modified as under:- Particulars amount in Crore Rs. serial number long-term capital

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 16608/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 269046/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 16608/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 269046/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 16608/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 269046/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 16608/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 269046/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 16608/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 269046/- u/s 234B of the Act which are not leviable

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. HARMENDER SINGH SRAN, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

132(4) of the Act of Sh. I.C. Jindal on 26/27.03.2010 was confronted to Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta. Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta has admitted to have arranged entries of bogus capital gain to the assess group by arranging entries of purchases in back dates. He has admitted before Sh. I.C. Jindal that he had arranged entries of capital gain

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

132(4) of the Act of Sh. I.C. Jindal on 26/27.03.2010 was confronted to Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta. Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta has admitted to have arranged entries of bogus capital gain to the assess group by arranging entries of purchases in back dates. He has admitted before Sh. I.C. Jindal that he had arranged entries of capital gain

B.R. ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

132(4) of the Act of Sh. I.C. Jindal on 26/27.03.2010 was confronted to Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta. Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta has admitted to have arranged entries of bogus capital gain to the assess group by arranging entries of purchases in back dates. He has admitted before Sh. I.C. Jindal that he had arranged entries of capital gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

4) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” Mani Kakkar “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

4) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” Mani Kakkar “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

4) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” Mani Kakkar “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

4) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” Mani Kakkar “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage paid by the respondent assessee? (2) Whether the order passed by the Income