UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI vs. ANAND KUMAR CHAURASIA , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and C

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

capital gain claim to have exempt U/s 10(38) of the Act. We noted that, this issue, in view of the above facts is now squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwellreported in [2023] 454 ITR 212, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has finally held down how search assessments

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

capital gain of Rs.6.61 crores as income from other sources. The assessee revised the return of income under the Head “Income from other sources” at Rs.6,93,73,702/- and ultimately declared total income of Rs.7,15,82,750/- which is accepted by the A.O. as it is in the Order under section 153A r.w.s

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

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

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

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

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

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

132A of the Act. This section allow the AO to initiate proceedings against any other person (not the section allow the AO to initiate proceedings against any other person (not the section allow the AO to initiate proceedings against any other person (not the searched person) if there are indications of undisclosed income. A key searched person) if there

PRAKHAR DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Us & Prayed That Additional

Capital Gain is not admissible to the appellant. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has in the facts and circumstances of the case erred in confirming the order of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.14,944/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act, based on conjecture and surmises and without any evidence on record to substantiate

JCIT(OSD), JHANDEWALAN vs. NARENDRA AGGARWAL, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwaljcit (Osd), Jhandewalan, Vs. Narendra Aggarwal, Delhi H.No. 467, Sector-21-A, Fardidabad, Haryana (Pan: Aagpa1441D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv., Saksham Agarwal, Ca & Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2025 Date Of Order : 19.12.2025 O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

Capital Gain u/s 111 of the Act AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2017 wherein the returned income was accepted. Thereafter, the PCIT initiated the proceeding under section 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order passed by the 11 AO u/s 143(3) in terms of the provisions of section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SURESH JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 369/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Ita No. 370/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 374/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Acit Vs Suresh Jain Circle-38(1), C-29, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxpj6507G Assessee By : Sh. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Sumit Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 29.11.2001 Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Xxviii, New Delhi For The Assessment Year 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2006-2007. Since The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 10(37), the capital gain arisen from the acquisition of the land amounting to Rs.58,17,070/- is brought to tax. Accordingly an addition of Rs.58,17,070/- is made to the returned income. 3. Since the assessee has not produced the vouchers in respect of expenses claimed, wrongly claimed loss from the firm M/s Ridge Court Bowling Centre

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. BAJRANG LAL AGGARWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1247/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 बनाम Dcit, Bajrang Lal Aggarwal Central Circle-28, Vs. Room No.327, E-2, Ara Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. Pan No.Aagpa0771J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re- opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.” 7.5 In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court it is clear that