VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains claimed\nexempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act')\ninvoking section 69A of the Act;\n\nii. Rs.1

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

capital gain for sale of shares as unjustified and was considered to be as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. The assessee

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

capital gain or business income. The circulars cited by the AR are applicable in the present case. In view of the above, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 14. Further in regard to the gift received by the assessee of Rs.7.92 crores, the findings reached

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

capital gain or business income. The circulars cited by the AR are applicable in the present case. In view of the above, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 14. Further in regard to the gift received by the assessee of Rs.7.92 crores, the findings reached

POOJA AJMANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Capital Gain was not genuine and addition of Rs.23,68,313/- was made to the return income of the assessee under section 69A

SAURABH ARVIND DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, NOIDA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblesaurabh Arvind Desai Vs Acit 11, Rushil Bunglows, B/H Pride Circle-1 Hotel Noida Near Auda Fire Station, Bodakdev Ahmedabad Agmpd2427J (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 271(1)(c). In the meantime 3 against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 29/11/2010 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Assessing Officer while passing penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) held that the CIT(A) in quantum confirmed that the profit on sale

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain obtained through brokers and that the assessee had used colourable device for avoidance of tax. The receipt of Rs.23,68,313/- was deemed to be income under section 69A

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

69A to 69D though he has stated to apply tax rate as per section 115BBE. 8.6.4. If the inference is drawn that ld. AO has made a disallowance of claim of exemption by the assessee u/s 10(38), then, first and foremost, his statement of applying the rate of 60% under section 115BBE does not hold good. Further, for claiming

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

69A to 69D though he has stated to apply tax rate as per section 115BBE. 8.6.4. If the inference is drawn that ld. AO has made a disallowance of claim of exemption by the assessee u/s 10(38), then, first and foremost, his statement of applying the rate of 60% under section 115BBE does not hold good. Further, for claiming

SANAT KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

capital gain obtained through brokers and that the assessee had used colourable device for avoidance of tax. The receipt of Rs.23,68,313/- was deemed to be income under section 69A

DCIT, CC, GZBD , GZBD vs. ANJALI MITTAL , GZBD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

69A of the Act being the amount surrendered by Shri Himanshu Mittal, son of the assessee during the course of survey. 5. The assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. The Ld. CIT(A) applied the provisions of section 54F(1)(b) of the Act, and computed the exempt value of capital gain

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Capital gains F.-Income from other sources.” ( Emphasis supplied) 9.1 Then subsequent chapters V of the Act has specified the income of other persons which are to be clubbed with the total income of the assessee. AYs: 2003-04 & 2008-09 9.2 Then chapter VI has specified certain deemed incomes under section 68, 69, 69A

ACIT, HARIDWAR vs. M/S SANT STEEL & ALLOYS (P) LTD., KOTDWAR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kant

Capital gains F.-Income from other sources.” ( Emphasis supplied) 9.1 Then subsequent chapters V of the Act has specified the income of other persons which are to be clubbed with the total income of the assessee. AYs: 2003-04 & 2008-09 9.2 Then chapter VI has specified certain deemed incomes under section 68, 69, 69A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. MEGHA GARG, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Income Tax Officer, Megha Garg, 1707 E-2 Block Civic Centre, 160 Saraswati Vihar Vaishali, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Aecpg7098C Appellant Respondent

capital gain of Rs. 65,01,278/- earned by the appellant was exempt as per provisions of section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and same has been duly declared in the income tax return of the assessee. 11. From the record, it is found that the addition made by the AO and upheld

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, DELHI vs. SANJEEV AGRAWAL HUF, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

69A to 69D though he has stated to apply tax rate as per section 115BBE. 7.2.4 In this case also appellant has sold of 3,63,045 shares of NU's Capital Trade Links Lad for Rs. 1.28.81,091/ on which appellant earned long term capital gain

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ROHAN AGARWAL, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royacit Vs. Rohan Agarwal Room No. 201, Cgo-1 Kd-42, Kavi Nagar 2Nd Floor, Near Purani Ghaziabad Hapur Chungi, Up – 201001 Ghaziabad, Up- 201002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aiupa3170F Appellant .. Respondent

69A of the IT Act, without considering the fact that M/s.CCL International Limited was one of the identified penny stock company as established by the Investigation Wing of the Department which was used for providing accommodation entry and creation of bogus capital gains exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case

SARIKA BINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 5(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasarika Bindal Vs. Ito 20/60, West Punjabi Bagh Ward – 5(4) New Delhi – 110 006 New Delhi Pan No. Aagpb 3973 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed under section 10(38) of the Act and additions of Rs.51,41,219/- on account of LTCG under section 69A

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA vs. RAGHAV BAHL, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Capital Gain and balance amount is deleted All the grounds of appeal relating to this addition are adjudicated accordingly.” 12. As observed above, Ld.CIT(A) has passed his findings on the basis of the details of acquisition made by the assessee of the shares sold during the year in 04 trenches and all the necessary details alongwith evidences are filed