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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious means under the garb of tax planning. vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious means under the garb of tax planning. vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious means under the garb of tax planning. vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

132,65,14,725/– is claimed as exempt. Therefore AO noted that the assessee has manipulated the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of these shares to claim the capital gain as exempt and assessee has adopted dubious means under the garb of tax planning. vi. The learned AO applied the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives or\nseparate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n\n(c) The trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

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

b) "specified previous year" means the previous year— (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before

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

b) "specified previous year" means the previous year— (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before

MR. SUNIL GOYAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

132,11,569/-, This amount has has been offered to tax at the applicable rate. Page 10 of 42 ITA No.- 719/Del/2010 Shri Sunil Goyal. 3.1 The assessee was asked to furnish the details regarding the sale of these shares to M/s Newell Sc Budge Holdings Ltd (N & B Holdings Ltd), Edinburgh, UK. In the previous year

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

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

132 (4) of the Act. We may refer to the statement in some detail later but suffice here to note that he stated, inter alia, that he was the power of attorney holder of the family of ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 4 of 48 Kedarnath Gupta and that Kedarnath Gupta was incurring about

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

132 (4) of the Act. We may refer to the statement in some detail later but suffice here to note that he stated, inter alia, that he was the power of attorney holder of the family of ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 4 of 48 Kedarnath Gupta and that Kedarnath Gupta was incurring about

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

132 (4) of the Act. We may refer to the statement in some detail later but suffice here to note that he stated, inter alia, that he was the power of attorney holder of the family of ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 4 of 48 Kedarnath Gupta and that Kedarnath Gupta was incurring about

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

132 (4) of the Act. We may refer to the statement in some detail later but suffice here to note that he stated, inter alia, that he was the power of attorney holder of the family of ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 4 of 48 Kedarnath Gupta and that Kedarnath Gupta was incurring about

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

132 (4) of the Act. We may refer to the statement in some detail later but suffice here to note that he stated, inter alia, that he was the power of attorney holder of the family of 2012:DHC:5366-DB ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 4 of 48 Kedarnath Gupta and that Kedarnath Gupta was incurring about

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

132 (4) of the Act. We may refer to the statement in some detail later but suffice here to note that he stated, inter alia, that he was the power of attorney holder of the family of 2012:DHC:5366-DB ITA Nos.713/2008, 948/2008, 892/2008, 707/2008 & 706/2008 Page 4 of 48 Kedarnath Gupta and that Kedarnath Gupta was incurring about

SUMITOMO CORPORATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Sumitomo Corporation Vs Dcit (International Taxation) G-195, Circle-3(1)(2) Sarita Vihar New Delhi New Delhi Aabcs6011P (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain referred in para 3.2 to 3.5. 5. That the learned AO has erroneously stated that the reasons mentioned in the order may be treated as satisfactory for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particular of income with respect to the additions made. 6. That