GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain of Rs. 9,52,494/- in his return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 35,30,874/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee, apart from

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

capital gain of Rs. 9,52,494/- in his return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 35,30,874/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee, apart from

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

capital gain of Rs. 9,52,494/- in his return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, the case was assessed at an income of Rs. 35,30,874/- by denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act vide order passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act. 2.1 Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee, apart from

SMT. RANJANA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the CO of the assessee is allowed and

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Ranjana Garg, Vs Dcit 141, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle 12, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Aanpg3625Q Extn., New Delhi. Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L Acit Vs Amita Garg, Central Circle 12, G-15, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi. New Delhi. Aadpg0990L

capital gain in pursuance to section 2(47)(vi) and section 50C of the Act by considering the transfer of shares as transfer of ownership of the land. The AO further disallowed an amount of Rs. 2 lakh from agricultural expenses on the ground that some of the bills and details were unverifiable. The assessee preferred an appeal before

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 gains and income from other sources. Assessee has not filed his original return under section 139 for the assessment year under appeal. The assessee filed his return for assessment year under appeal only on 31.08.2016, in response to notice under section 153A

MDLR ESTATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

153A, 142 (1) and 143 (2), the Assessing Officer completed the Page No. 2 assessment u/s. 144 of the Act on 21.12.2009 determining the total income at Rs.110,12,38,532/-. 3. The assessee moved an application before the CIT(Central)-II, New Delhi under the provisions of section 264 on 14.06.2010. The CIT(Central)-II, New Delhi vide order

MDLR BUILDERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

153A, 142 (1) and 143 (2), the Assessing Officer completed the Page No. 2 assessment u/s. 144 of the Act on 21.12.2009 determining the total income at Rs.110,12,38,532/-. 3. The assessee moved an application before the CIT(Central)-II, New Delhi under the provisions of section 264 on 14.06.2010. The CIT(Central)-II, New Delhi vide order

SURESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

capital gain in Unno industries Ltd. Therefore, he submitted that assessee is a regular investor in the shares. v. There is only a range bound movement in the share price of the alleged company and there was no sharp increase or decline in the price of its shares. He submitted a detailed chart where the sale price of the impugned

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

153A of the Act and make an addition under Section 68 of the Act on bogus share capital gain. The order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

153A of the Act and make an addition under Section 68 of the Act on bogus share capital gain. The order

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-III vs. KABUL CHAWLA

153A of the Act and make an addition under Section 68 of the Act on bogus share capital gain. The order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 NEW DELHI vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

153A of the Act and make an addition under Section 68 of the Act on bogus share capital gain. The order

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 NEW DELHI vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERSN N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

153A of the Act and make an addition under Section 68 of the Act on bogus share capital gain. The order

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -2 vs. MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP M/S FERNS N PETALS

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

153A of the Act and make an addition under Section 68 of the Act on bogus share capital gain. The order

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

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 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