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

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

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives or\nseparate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n\n(c) The trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain rejecting the claim under Section 54F of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) restricted the said addition to the tune of Rs.15,63,566/-. 3. The case of the assessee before us is this that the order passed by the Ld. AO being ITO, Ward -2(3), Gurgaon under Section 143(3) is without appreciating the fact that

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

KULDIP KUMAR GOEL,DELHI vs. ACIT(1)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above\nterms for statistical purposes

153C or after the completion of the assessment,\nwhichever is earlier.]\n(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in\nquestion the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer, then the Assessing\nOfficer shall, if not satisfied with the correctness of the claim, refer the\nmatter for determination under sub-section (2) before the assessment

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

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

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

AMIT BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj

SURESH CHAND BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16 , DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Neeraj