HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

133A of the Act was conducted by the revenue authorities at the Delhi premises of the HMCL on 23/24.03.2018, whereby copy of certain agreements/ documents were collected and statement of various persons/ employees were recorded in relation to the aforesaid transaction of purchase of shares of HHML by HIPL/ assessee from Honda. Further, various other details / documents were requisitioned

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

Capital Gains on sale of shares. Hence, there was no concealment of income. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty for furnishing in accurate particulars of income. It is not the case where the details furnished by the assessee were found to be incorrect with respect to LTCG earned during the year. It was the claim of exemption u/s. 65F which

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S ADVANTAGE FASHION PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is also affirmed, and the Ground No. 5 raised by the Revenue in AY 2011-12 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble

Capital gains tax at the point of sale to ESPO (i.e., in A. Y.2011-12). The gain is Long term, as the exclusive holding of the property in the hands of the appellant commenced from 11.06.2005 as per the terms of the MOU dated 11.06.2005. The interest income added by the A.O. for the assessment year 2006-07 is deleted

ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, NEW DELHI

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee wherein it is challenged by the assessee that assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act is time barred in terms of section 153B of the Act and ought to have held to be annulled.

section 153C of the Act. 16. The impugned assessment order need to be quashed in view of the jurisdictional issue which goes to the root of the assessment proceedings as has been held in Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, PCIT vs S S Con Build (P) Ltd 2022-TIOL

NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 133A was conducted by the investigation Wing, Kolkata on the premises of Shri Ashok Kayan and his company M/s Kayan Securities Pvt Ltd and it was found that Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan was involved in providing accommodation enters in the form of long Term Capital Gain

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 vs. M/S. RAJAT FINVEST

Capital Gains” [“LTCG”]. 3.1 The LTCG, as per the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2015, which were registered by the respondent/assessee in each of the AYs is the following: Assessment Year (AY) Amount 1. 2008-09 Rs. 37,41,74,914/- 2. 2009-10 Rs. 2,29,30,711/- 3. 2010-11 Rs. 59,24,97,150/- 4. In order to adjudicate

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 vs. M/S. RAJAT FINVEST

Capital Gains” [“LTCG”]. 3.1 The LTCG, as per the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2015, which were registered by the respondent/assessee in each of the AYs is the following: Assessment Year (AY) Amount 1. 2008-09 Rs. 37,41,74,914/- 2. 2009-10 Rs. 2,29,30,711/- 3. 2010-11 Rs. 59,24,97,150/- 4. In order to adjudicate

GAURAV SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagaurav Singhal Vs. Ito, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aohps3787D (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in facts and failed in distinguishing the present case with the hypothecations and presumptions relied upon by the ld. AO. 6. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while upholding the addition of gross sale value of shares as undisclosed income

ITO, HISAR vs. SH. SANT SINGH PROP., HISAR

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

133A at the business of Smt. Bhawna Jain Props. M/s. Aakash Metal Industries, Hansi from where copy of registration deed no. 5381 dated 21.02.2008 was found and impounded. The deed disclosed the sale of 16 Kanal 5 marlas i.e. 9831 square yards land by assessee to M/s. Amazon Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 4,81,73,125/- . Ld. AO observed

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. BHAGWATI COAL MOVERS (P) LTD., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

133A of the Act on 29.11.2012 at the business premises of the assessee. Consequently, the return of the assessee was subjected to scrutiny assessment. In the course of the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer inter alia observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of coal only and no trade in real estate is substantiated

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiya

SECTION 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - SEARCH & SEIZURE - ADMISSIONS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER COERCION/PRESSURE DURING SEARCH/SURVEY LETTER [F.NO.286/98/2013-IT (INV.II)], DATED 18-12-2014 Instances/complaints of undue influence/coercion have come to notice of the CBDT that some assessees were coerced to admit undisclosed income during Searches/Surveys conducted by the Department. It is also seen that many such admissions

LAKHMI CHAND YADAV,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 516/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Lakhmi Chand Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village Mirzapur Hardet Haveli Ward-1(4), Mujehri, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepy4744P Assessee By : Sh. M. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 28.11.2019 In Case No. 10339/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

capital gains (supra). The necessary inference is that the assessee’s said cash deposit in fact represents his on-money involving the twin sale deeds and therefore, we quote (1994) 49 ITD 43 (Bom.) Mrs. Malini Ramnath Rele Vs. ITO to hold that this amount has to be taken as explained. We thus accept the assessee’s first and foremost

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. MAYFAIR RESORTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain have been shown by the assessee in the written of income for FY 2014-15 pertaining to AY 2015-16. 6. The learned AR further drew our attention towards para 5.6 to 5.8 of first appellate order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly relied on the order of ITAT Delhi Bench dated