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

Capital Gains at Rs. 29,06,24,755/- and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. Page 10 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi 8. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 9. Ground 1 and 2 and 19 are general. Ground

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

Capital Gains at Rs. 29,06,24,755/- and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. Page 10 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi 8. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 9. Ground 1 and 2 and 19 are general. Ground

SANGITA 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

Capital Gains at Rs. 29,06,24,755/- and added the same to the total income of the Assessee. Page 10 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle – Int. Tax. 2 (1)(2) New Delhi 8. Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 9. Ground 1 and 2 and 19 are general. Ground

VIJAY SINGH CHAUHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-2(5), NOIDA

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishravijay Singh Chauhan, Income Tax Officer, House No.-193, Gali No.-3, Vs. Ward- 2(5), Noida, Village Chhalera, Sector-44, Uttar Pradesh, Noida, Uttar Pradesh India. India. Pan No: Aeipc4637E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2025 Order Per Sudhir Pareek, Jm: The Aforetitled Appeal Has Been Preferred Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter, In Short, ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.07.2023 For Ay 2015-16, By Which Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed.

capital gains is exempt u/s 10(37) of the Act. In support of the claim, the appellant relied on the decision of CIT, Faridabad vs Ghanshyam (HUF) 315 ITR(1). The AO did not accept the objections of the appellant as he said that section 56(2)(viii) of the Act read with section 145A(b) is very clear that

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

2,33,769/- instead of Rs. 16,90,413/- claimed by the assessee. Accordingly, the exemption claimed u/s 54 of the Act was restricted to Rs. 20,00,000/- only. The sole reason for rejecting the exemption claimed by the assessee is that the assessee is eligible to get exemption u/s 54 of the Act only in respect

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

2,40,00,000/- and earned LTCG of Rs. 1,78,53,468/- which she claimed as exempt under section 54 of 6 the Act because she purchased two properties namely property No. 345, Block-C in Greater Noida for Rs. 79,71,600/- on 25.10.2011 and property No. 32-D, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi

VEENA SHAH,PANIPAT vs. PR CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

gains'.Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 5 of 2010 was brought to remove thehardships created by the decision of the Supreme Court in Rama Sai (supra) for taxing the income in preceding years, which besides tax will entail interest and penalties under the Act.This Circular has not come to treat the interest as capital receipt

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

JAGPAL,GURUGRAM vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

Capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where— such land is situated in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu undivided family

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

2)(viib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") (refer pages 147 to 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

BHIM SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

Capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where— i. such land is situated in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; ii. such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu

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, and the PCIT had observed that the AO did not adequately investigate the matter, leading to the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Consequently, the invocation of Section 153C and issuance of notice by the AO was justified based on these specific circumstances. It was also submitted that CIT(A) failed to consider that

BIR SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

Capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where— i. such land is situated in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding ii. the date of transfer, was being used for agricultural purposes by such Hindu

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