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

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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

Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Loss or any other sham transactions. " Similarly, the clarification for unlisted shares states: "It is, however, clarified that the above would not be necessarily applied in the situation where: (i) the genuineness of the transaction in unlisted shares itself is questionable; or (ii) the transfer of unlisted shares is related to an issue pertaining to lifting

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)

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

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

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

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

M/S. CHANDRA PRAKASH GOEL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, HAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sh. Chandra Prakash Goel, C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Hapur Extension, Part-I, New Delhi Pan : Aatpg4288R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/02/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad For Assessment Year 2010-11, Raising Following Grounds:

capital gain at NIL and by assessing the business income at Rs.62,39,059/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and that too by adopting wrong facts and figures. 3) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case learned CIT-A has erred in law and on facts in confirming

NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAQL CIRCLE-15, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed return of income on 27/03/2015 declaring total income of Rs18,98,510/-which included salary from M/s Frontline Business Solutions Private Limited, profit and gains of the business from trading in “Agarbatties”, “Papad” and “badies” and short-term

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gains. Another objection raised before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel about the pendency of international arbitration and therefore requested to keep the proceedings pending was rejected. It was further objected before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel that interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 234C ought to have been charged qua the first three installments of advance tax stated to be due on 15th June, 15th September and 15th December, respectively, as the project’s corresponding transfer had taken place only on 17.02.2015 i.e. the date on which the consequential capital gains

DEVIDAYAL ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

section 234C ought to have been charged qua the first three installments of advance tax stated to be due on 15th June, 15th September and 15th December, respectively, as the project’s corresponding transfer had taken place only on 17.02.2015 i.e. the date on which the consequential capital gains

KUSUM SAHGAL,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Kusum Sahgal, Through Lr Shri Vs. Acit, Circle-19(2), Viney Sagar Sahgal, New Delhi Mg-2002, The Magnolias, Golf Course Road Dlf Phase-V, Gurugram, 122 002 Haryana Pan :Aatps3766J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub-section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub-section (1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

BILL & PEGGY MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

234C provides two exceptions when deferment or shortfall in the payment of installment of advance tax can be 2011:DHC:6121-DB ITA 1013/2011 Page 9 of 10 condoned and taken into consideration for computing interest under the said Section. This is possible in case there is under estimate or failure to estimate on account of capital gains

BILL & PEGGY MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

234C provides two exceptions when deferment or shortfall in the payment of installment of advance tax can be 2011:DHC:6121-DB ITA 1013/2011 Page 9 of 10 condoned and taken into consideration for computing interest under the said Section. This is possible in case there is under estimate or failure to estimate on account of capital gains

BILL & PEGGY MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

234C provides two exceptions when deferment or shortfall in the payment of installment of advance tax can be 2011:DHC:6121-DB ITA 1013/2011 Page 9 of 10 condoned and taken into consideration for computing interest under the said Section. This is possible in case there is under estimate or failure to estimate on account of capital gains

SHRI UDAY SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2013-14] Shri Uday Sood Vs. The I.T.O 1005, Sector – 15 Ward – 8(2) Faridabad, Haryana New Delhi Pan : Adzps 5454 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

234C and 234D of the Act.” 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee strongly objected to the order of the A.O which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has filed his return of income on 26.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 14,57,120/- wherein capital gain

RAM MOHAN RAI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiram Mohan Rai, Vs. Acit, A-8/25, Vansant Vihar, Circle-33(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaapr0728C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 234B and 234C of the Act,‖ 3. Ground No. 1, 4 are general in nature and therefore they are dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the cases that assessee is an individual who filed his return of income on 05/07/2013 showing income of Rs. 7648330/– deriving income from business, long-term capital gain