EMERGING INDIA FOCUS FUNDS,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 1(2)(2), DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains on sale of mutual fund units as taxable in India and making an addition of INR 297,13,00,571 in the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in levying interest

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

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 36315/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B

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

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 36315/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B

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

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 36315/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B

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

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 36315/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B

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

capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 36315/- under section 234A of the Act and interest of Rs. 5,88,305/- u/s 234B

PHILLIP KOSHY,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.415/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Phillip Koshy, Dcit, C/O K B Chandna & Co., E-27, Vs. Central Circle-29, Ndse-Ii, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Armpk8500C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee filed his return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

gain of Rs.6,90,68,982/- as business income. 9.3 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in holding that investment in units of mutual funds and shares were made as a systematic business activity, without appreciating that such investments were made on capital account and not as “stock-in-trade”. 9.4 That the assessing officer erred

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. Accordingly Rs.74,487/- (3% of sale value i.e. Rs.24,82,890/- is being added under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income, therefore, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. [Addition of Rs.25,57,377/-] 11. With these remarks, the total income

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

capital gain calculation and also as income from other sources. Inspite of Hon’ble DRP direction to record reason on the alleged treatment of impugned amount, no justification has been given in assessment order dated 26.06.2022 u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act. 5. That the learned AO / DRP has grossly erred in law and on facts

M/S. ASHWANI KUMAR & SONS (HUF),MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiashwani Kumar & Sons (Huf) Ito, C/0. Vinod Kumar Goel, Vs. Ward-1(1), 282, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut Meerut Pan:Aahha7564A (Appellant) (Respondent)

234B and 234C is not according to law as income of the assessee is relates to capital gain.” 3. Ground No. 1 and 2 are against denial of deduction to the assessee under section

RAMOTAR SINGH HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 2, REWARI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

capital gain by restricting the indexed cost of acquisition to Rs. 1,25,892/- as against claimed indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 1,39,68,698/- and thus even otherwise the addition sustained is invalid. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the denial of exemption

SHRI KRISHNA SHRIRAM,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

section 234B of the Act.” 2. In this appeal, the assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal on 17.11.2016 as under : “That on the facts and circumstances of the case profit earned on sale of 6,79,000 shares of Mawana Sugars Ltd. inadvertently returned as ‘shgort ITA No. 866 , 1417/Del/2013 3 term capital gains

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KRISHNA SHRIRAM, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

section 234B of the Act.” 2. In this appeal, the assessee has also raised additional ground of appeal on 17.11.2016 as under : “That on the facts and circumstances of the case profit earned on sale of 6,79,000 shares of Mawana Sugars Ltd. inadvertently returned as ‘shgort ITA No. 866 , 1417/Del/2013 3 term capital gains

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 50 of the Act to consider the ‘sale of shares’ as ‘sale of asset’ for calculating short term capita gain, is invalid and not supported by any legal provisions. We therefore direct the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground

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 50 of the Act to consider the ‘sale of shares’ as ‘sale of asset’ for calculating short term capita gain, is invalid and not supported by any legal provisions. We therefore direct the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the 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

section 50 of the Act to consider the ‘sale of shares’ as ‘sale of asset’ for calculating short term capita gain, is invalid and not supported by any legal provisions. We therefore direct the AO to delete the additions made as Short Term Capital Gain. The grounds of appeal at 12 to 18 are allowed. 43. As the ground