MUKUL RANI THAKUR,DEHRADUN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Vimal Kumar

153C(1) of IT Act and the assessment was not an abated assessment. 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.97,37,300/ The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.97,37,300/- The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.97,37,300/ under the head long term capital gain

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

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act was long term capital gain on sale of loose diamonds being capital

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act was long term capital gain on sale of loose diamonds being capital

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act was long term capital gain on sale of loose diamonds being capital

HARISH KUMAR AGRAWAL,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Harish Kumar Agrawal, 1080, Arya Nagar, Gali No. 3, Central Circle-3, Kosi Kalan, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aawpa1906F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.M. Agrawal, Ca Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr)

section 153C of the Act is vitiated in law and requires to be quashed. 23. We however, also advert to the objections raised on merits of the additions made in the assessment order. On facts, the AO has relied on some photographs of the Agreement to Sale dated 06.08.2018 and alleged that the total sale consideration of the property situated

MR. ABHISHEK CHHABRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Dcit, Sh. Harish Kumar Agrawal, 1080, Arya Nagar, Gali No. 3, Central Circle-3, Kosi Kalan, New Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aawpa1906F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.M. Agrawal, Ca Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit(Dr)

section 153C of the Act is vitiated in law and requires to be quashed. 23. We however, also advert to the objections raised on merits of the additions made in the assessment order. On facts, the AO has relied on some photographs of the Agreement to Sale dated 06.08.2018 and alleged that the total sale consideration of the property situated

RENU JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, , NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Om Prakash Tantia, Vs. Dcit Plot No. 165-167, Sector-25, Central Circle – 25 Ballabgarh, Faridabad New Delhi Pan No.Abspt8332M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Nisha Jain Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Acspj6903H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Tantia Vs. Dcit C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate Central Circle – 25 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi-110085 Pan No.Aafpt4583L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital gain of Rs 19,18,144/- and 6% unexplained expenditure of Rs 19,18,144/- u/s 69 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 22-01-2018 sustained the additions and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved

REVELATION UNIQUE RETAIL AND MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153C of the Act is vitiated in law and requires to be quashed. 23. We however, also advert to the objections raised on merits of the additions made in the assessment order. On facts, the AO has relied on some photographs of the Agreement to Sale dated 06.08.2018 and alleged that the total sale consideration of the property situated

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. USHA SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Revelation Unique Retail & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Marketing Private Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-3, 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Aaicr9933L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153C of the Act is vitiated in law and requires to be quashed. 23. We however, also advert to the objections raised on merits of the additions made in the assessment order. On facts, the AO has relied on some photographs of the Agreement to Sale dated 06.08.2018 and alleged that the total sale consideration of the property situated

ANSHUL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 , DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Ansul Bansal, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Tax, Circle-3, New Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 02 Pan :Auqpb8298M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 153C of the Act is vitiated in law and requires to be quashed. 23. We however, also advert to the objections raised on merits of the additions made in the assessment order. On facts, the AO has relied on some photographs of the Agreement to Sale dated 06.08.2018 and alleged that the total sale consideration of the property situated

PUSHPANJALI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUSHPANJALI PALACE,DEHLI GATE,AGRA vs. DCIT, CEN CIR GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.1390/Del/2020\nvide order dated 13.06.2025.\nThus, the confirmation of addition by the Ld. CIT(A) is not in order on the\nfollowing facts:-\na).\nNo proper satisfaction not drawn u/s_153C because neither it mentions the\nbasis of issuance of notice and how there is escapement of income by virtue of\ndocument found from

SUMIT GUPTA AND SONS HUF,MEERUT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshsumit Gupta & Sons, Vs. Dcit, A-1, Shambhu Nagar, Central Circle, Baghpat Road, Up Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaqhs3600A Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2024

Capital Gain (LTCG) were found during search of Dev Priya Group. Accordingly, notice stood issued u/s 153C of the Act to the assessee on 11.10.2017 after recording the following satisfaction note:- “Satisfaction note for issue of notice under section

ARTI DHALL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1239/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22

capital gain u/s 45 of the I.T. Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. “That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer solely on the basis of assessment 1 I.T.A.No.1239/Del/2024 order of Ld. AO without considering the facts, case laws and submissions made during the course

RITU KAPUR,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shrimanish Agarwal

capital gain is made in the case of assessee, therefore, these statements are not relevant to the facts of the instant case. 14.10. In the instant case, the best course of action would be u/s 153C after following the procedure of recording of satisfaction to this effect as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta