DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. SH. RAMESH BATTA, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Cross

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Central Circle, Ramesh Batta, Dehradun. Vs. 81/210, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun.

capital gain by Rs.6,61,831/- by re-determining the land price without appreciating the fact that the addition was made by the A.O. on the basis of the material on record. 4 C.O. No.242/Del/2013 2. That Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,40,03,327/- on account of profit

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. MAYFAIR RESORTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain have been shown by the assessee in the written of income for FY 2014-15 pertaining to AY 2015-16. 6. The learned AR further drew our attention towards para 5.6 to 5.8 of first appellate order and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly relied on the order of ITAT Delhi Bench dated

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

capital gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act and disallowed the same by adding back to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 29.12.2017 and also added the commission amounting to Rs. 9,30,406/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act, on bogus LTCG received through accommodation entries at the income

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

section 292C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Presumptive addition) - Assessment year 2009- 10 - Assessee sold a property and derived long-term capital gain

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

section 292C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained money (Presumptive addition) - Assessment year 2009- 10 - Assessee sold a property and derived long-term capital gain

SHRI BHARAT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 292C of the Act. 5.10 Further, we find that the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee received cash payment of Rs.83,50,000/-, is based on the presumption that said draft agreement to sell was prepared on the direction of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has recorded the statement of Sh. Naresh Gupta, a copy

SHRI BHARAT SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

section 292C of the Act. 5.10 Further, we find that the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee received cash payment of Rs.83,50,000/-, is based on the presumption that said draft agreement to sell was prepared on the direction of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has recorded the statement of Sh. Naresh Gupta, a copy

DAYA BANSAL,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 48(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

capital gain can be made. Thus, it is apparent that the assessee has not been granted an opportunity of the cross-examination of Sri R. K. Kedia and Shri Manish Arora. The learned authorised representative has relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court where in relying on case of state of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chintaman sadashiv Waishampayan

AMITABH BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

capital gain can be made. Thus, it is apparent that the assessee has not been granted an opportunity of the cross-examination of Sri R. K. Kedia and Shri Manish Arora. The learned authorised representative has relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court where in relying on case of state of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chintaman sadashiv Waishampayan

ANJUL BANSAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 46(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

capital gain can be made. Thus, it is apparent that the assessee has not been granted an opportunity of the cross-examination of Sri R. K. Kedia and Shri Manish Arora. The learned authorised representative has relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court where in relying on case of state of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chintaman sadashiv Waishampayan

NASEEM ZAFAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-46(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

capital gain can be made. Thus, it is apparent that the assessee has not been granted an opportunity of the cross-examination of Sri R. K. Kedia and Shri Manish Arora. The learned authorised representative has relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court where in relying on case of state of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chintaman sadashiv Waishampayan

NASEEM SAAD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-46(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

capital gain can be made. Thus, it is apparent that the assessee has not been granted an opportunity of the cross-examination of Sri R. K. Kedia and Shri Manish Arora. The learned authorised representative has relied upon the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court where in relying on case of state of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chintaman sadashiv Waishampayan