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

section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 during the search proceedings at D-45, back side ground floor, Saraswati Garden, New Delhi-110015. During his statement, he has stated that he is your employee since last 20 years and getting salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. and brokerage and commission of Rs.25,000/- p.m. in cash. Please go through

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

section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 during the search proceedings at D-45, back side ground floor, Saraswati Garden, New Delhi-110015. During his statement, he has stated that he is your employee since last 20 years and getting salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. and brokerage and commission of Rs.25,000/- p.m. in cash. Please go through

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

section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 during the search proceedings at D-45, back side ground floor, Saraswati Garden, New Delhi-110015. During his statement, he has stated that he is your employee since last 20 years and getting salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. and brokerage and commission of Rs.25,000/- p.m. in cash. Please go through

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

section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 during the search proceedings at D-45, back side ground floor, Saraswati Garden, New Delhi-110015. During his statement, he has stated that he is your employee since last 20 years and getting salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. and brokerage and commission of Rs.25,000/- p.m. in cash. Please go through

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra).‖ xvii. In the case at hand, as evident from the stated facts, the A.O has placed strong reliance on statements of third parties recorded u/s 132(4)/ 133A

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra).‖ xvii. In the case at hand, as evident from the stated facts, the A.O has placed strong reliance on statements of third parties recorded u/s 132(4)/ 133A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

capital gains or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

capital gains or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

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

capital gains or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

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

capital gains or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

capital gains or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

capital gains or loss, if any. The bank accounts of Kedarnath Gupta were also called for. In addition, he was required to produce Rajinder Gupta on 15.03.2002 in connection with the sworn statement recorded from him on the date of search where he had referred to the purchase of farm houses by his brother Kedarnath Gupta. There was no response

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27/12/2017. In the return of income filed, the assessee declared income under the “salary”, “Income from house property”, “income from business or profession”, “income from capital gain” and “income from other sources”. The assessee declared long-term capital gain of Rs.4,15,67,925/- on sale of unlisted shares. Against

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

capital gain through stock broker M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. On cross examination by Shri. Jindal, he confirmed that he had not received any cash from him. He also confirmed that he had never introduced M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. and Shri. Santosh Shah to the assessee. And at the end, Shri. I.C. Jindal surrendered Rupees fifty one crores

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

capital gain through stock broker M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. On cross examination by Shri. Jindal, he confirmed that he had not received any cash from him. He also confirmed that he had never introduced M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. and Shri. Santosh Shah to the assessee. And at the end, Shri. I.C. Jindal surrendered Rupees fifty one crores

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

capital gain through stock broker M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. On cross examination by Shri. Jindal, he confirmed that he had not received any cash from him. He also confirmed that he had never introduced M/s P.K. Aggarwal & Co. and Shri. Santosh Shah to the assessee. And at the end, Shri. I.C. Jindal surrendered Rupees fifty one crores

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Capital Gains (LTCG) to be claimed as exempt from tax. Numerous cases have been unearthed and individuals have been identified who were beneficiaries of such bogus entries of LTCG amounting to several crores from 2010 to 2014. 3 ITA No.5342/Del./2018 4. AO noticed that assessee being the beneficiary of such bogus entries purchased and sold the shares

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, GURGAON vs. ORIENT CRAFT LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain and Rs. 39,96,76,340/- made in the assessment order and confirmed by the first appellate authority do not stand to the test of law and are not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and hence we delete the above said both the additions and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee