NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021. 10. The ld AR elaborating on its argument that the reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion', stated that the issue of sale of shares and capital gains

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 151 is mechanical in law. c. Reassessment is in violation of Circular/Instruction dated 04.03.2021 as modified on 12.03.2021. 10. The ld AR elaborating on its argument that the reassessment is merely based on 'Change of Opinion', stated that the issue of sale of shares and capital gains

ANU GERA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Accordingly Ground No. 3 of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 54(1) of the Act in the facts of the case does not deserve acceptance." 12. In the case of Tilokchand & Sons vs. ITO (2019) reported in 105 taxman.com 151 (Madras), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that where the assessee HUF sold its residential house and invested capital gain

BIGSTAR HOTELS RESORTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

151 of the paper-book).\n6. Subsequently, at the time of selling of shares by the Appellant (i.e.as seller) to a third party. specific provisions contained under Section 50CA r.w. Rule 11UAA determining full value of consideration of unquoted shares, shall apply in the hands of the Appellant/seller. As per the said provisions, higher of FMV or sale consideration

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1994-95 - During course of search operation, assessee first stated that he had no undisclosed income and thereafter he surrendered a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs as his undisclosed income - Out of said amount Rs. 4 lakhs was stated to have been invested as stock

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 gains. Second, the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16, being an unabated year, no proceeding under section 153C of the Act would be initiated without any incriminating material found/seized. Third, as per the satisfaction note, the purported 5 incriminating documents of cash transactions relate to AY 2016-17 and therefore, no proceeding under section 153C

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains on sale of loose diamonds. Subsequently, against the said order passed by the Ld. AO making above addition, appeal was preferred by the assessee which is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 153C r.w.s

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains on sale of loose diamonds. Subsequently, against the said order passed by the Ld. AO making above addition, appeal was preferred by the assessee which is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 153C r.w.s

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gains on sale of loose diamonds. Subsequently, against the said order passed by the Ld. AO making above addition, appeal was preferred by the assessee which is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 153C r.w.s

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

capital gain account before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31.07.2012 is ineligible for exemption under section 54 of the Act which he disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee (refer para 7.2, 7.3, 7.10 and 7.11 of the assessment order). 13. As stated earlier

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

capital gain had accrued to the appellant on account of sale of shares hence the appellant is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 54. Further appellant is not entitled to claim deduction, as he failed to furnish documentary evidences like completion certificate from authority, copy of electricity bill etc. to substantiate his claim that construction was completed within three

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

capital gain had accrued to the appellant on account of sale of shares hence the appellant is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 54. Further appellant is not entitled to claim deduction, as he failed to furnish documentary evidences like completion certificate from authority, copy of electricity bill etc. to substantiate his claim that construction was completed within three

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated

K K SPUN INDIA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, JHANDEWALAN DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gain be deleted.  The interest levied under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C be recalculated or deleted.  The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) be quashed.  Any other relief deemed fit by the Hon’ble Tribunal be granted. 15. Thereafter, the assessee has also taken additional grounds of appeal, wherein assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated