RAKSHITA PATEL ,DELHI vs. AO WARD 49(2), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 54 to cover any leakage of revenue. Therefore an amount of Rs 8,25,000/- {which is 5 % of Rs 1,65,00,000/-} is being added to total income of the assessee under the head long term capital gains to cover any leakage of revenue. Therefore I am of the considered view that an amount

REKHA ,GURGAON vs. JCIT, RANGE 3, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

271D of the Act imposed penalty of Rs.90,000/- for receiving cash of Rs.90,000/- stating that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. 4. On appeal the ld. CIT (Appeals) sustained the penalty observing that the assessee failed to provide any reasonabnle cause for accepting cash of Rs.90,000/- towards sale consideration. 5.1 Before

JAGDISH PRASHAD GUPTA,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. JCIT RANGE 1(1), MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Jagdish Prashad Gupta, Vs. Jcit, 580/227, Bhartiya Colony, Range 1(1), New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh – 251 001. Pan: Ahbpg9897R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

capital gains to tax, penalty imposed under section 271D was unsustainable in law. 6. The ld. DR relied on the impugned

SONIA MALIK,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 69, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sonia Malik, Vs. Jcit, 229, Ground Floor, Range-69, Avtar Enclave, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anqpm9150J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pramod Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6Th Septemfebr, 2018 Passed By The Cit(A)-21, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Various Grounds Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Penalty Of Rs.3,25,000/- Levied By The Jcit U/S 271D Of The It Act.

capital gain claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the IT Act apart from making addition of Rs.57,538/- on account of interest and Rs.8,160/- under the head ‘Salary.’ During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had taken cash loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from Shri Darshan Singh Gujral, Rs.1,00,000/- from

COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-V vs. NIPUAN AUTO PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Who Had Substantially Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. In So Far As 2013:Dhc:2197-Db

capital gains or availability of funds during the years in question, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the said amount of ` 1.9 lacs remained unexplained and, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer, to that extent, was upheld. It may also be pointed out at 2013:DHC:2197-DB ITA No.225/2013 Page 4 of 8 this juncture

COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-V vs. NIPUAN AUTO PVT LTD

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Who Had Substantially Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee. In So Far As 2013:Dhc:2197-Db

capital gains or availability of funds during the years in question, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the said amount of ` 1.9 lacs remained unexplained and, therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer, to that extent, was upheld. It may also be pointed out at 2013:DHC:2197-DB ITA No.225/2013 Page 4 of 8 this juncture

DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI vs. PROVESTMENT SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit, Vs. M/S. Provestment Circle-20(1), Securities Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi 305. Rattan Jyoti Building, 18, Rajendra Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp8116H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Dharambir Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2024

capital gains on the said land. Considering the above discussion, assessing officer is directed to delete addition on account of the transaction with Sh. Rakesh Gupta of Rs. 2.5 crores. Hence, this ground of appeal is allowed. However, in view of the fact that appellant has shown cash credit of Rs. 15 lakhs under the head 'Deposits from Public' from

INDERJEET KAUR BHATIA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 49(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

capital gain on the same was also disclosed in the Income tax Return. It was argued that the Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiry in respect of the AIR information as no property was purchased during the year. 11. The ld. counsel for the assessee further argued that the ld. CIT(A) has mistakenly passed the order considering that

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

gains on sale of land and building and could not substantiate his claim about purchase of another house property, and thus the AO brought to tax LTCG and also levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) ; Notes that CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by applying the ratio laid down by Karnataka HC in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory case; Further

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

capital not unsecured loan. In respect of Rs. 22,00,000/-, received by the assessee as advance against sale of his property, the AO levied the penalty u/s. 271D of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO on the ground that the impugned amount is in the nature of loan. Against

NABIL JAVED ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 63(3), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

capital not unsecured loan. In respect of Rs. 22,00,000/-, received by the assessee as advance against sale of his property, the AO levied the penalty u/s. 271D of the Act and Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO on the ground that the impugned amount is in the nature of loan. Against