DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. R.J. CORP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain on sale of shares I am partly confirming the AO’s action. The additional income resulting from part confirmation of those grounds would also be telescoped into the above stated Rs. 8,24,33,171/- as the same is covered by the narration of the surrendered income.” 25. We find that this is an ad-hoc enhancement made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI vs. SUMAN MINDA, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

section 69B of the Act whereas in the present case it is capital gains under section 45 of the Act. Thus

J. M. HOUSING LIMITED,DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2021-22] J.M. Housing Limited, Pr.Cit (Central) Kanpur, At Meerut, 312/3T/F5 Pratap Bhawan, Aayakar Bhawan, Bhainsali Ground, Bhahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Vs Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-25001 Central Delhi, Delhi-11002 Pan-Aaccj1692E Assessee Revenue

gains of the business or profession, and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of any such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof" shall include the remission or cessation of any liability

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain or penny stocks for converting their unaccounted money. The investigation revealed that the share prices of these penny stock companies were manipulated by syndicate of operators. As per the details available on the website of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘SEBI’), it conducted an investigation into the trading activities in the scrip

HARISH NARANG,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

69B, section 69C, section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a) the income tax payable shall be the aggregate of – (i) the amount of income tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty percent; and (ii) the amount of income tax with which the assessee would been

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. SUDHARSHNA ARORA, NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarita No.1185 /Del./2010, A.Y. 2004-05 Ito, Vs Smt. Sudharshna Arora Ward-24(4), . B-6/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaepa8154H (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain of Rs. 419,32,862/- and added to the income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)-III, Delhi and filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition with the below observations: “4.1 The submissions made by the Counsel

AVICHAL KULSHRESTHA,LONDON vs. ITO WARD 35(7), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain (LTCG) to the extent of Rs.62,72,665/-. However, in revised return of income, assessee has declared LTCG of Rs.22,65,071/-. AO observed that assessee has claimed additional deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.61,41,102/- in place of Rs.21,33,108/-. In order to verify the same, notice

BIMLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-38(5), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekbimla, Vs. Ito, Ward 38 (5), H.No.143, Village Hamidpur, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 036. (Pan : Bpdpb9344B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-13, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.07.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,23,030/- On 14.08.2014. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notices

69B is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. I, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aar Pee Apartments (P) Ltd. (supra), the 12 impugned order is therefore set aside. The addition made u/s 69C on the basis of the report

MAHESH CHAND SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-35(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

capital gain and the entire addition has been made only on the basis of surrender made by the assessee at the time of search. 12. On identical set of facts, the coordinate bench in ITA No. 1344/DEL/2021 had the occasion to adjudicate similar issue. The relevant findings read as under: “9. Having held so, we may further add that

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

HECTOR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 29, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

capital gain declared by the assessee and claimed as\nexempt under section 10(38) are to be treated as genuine\nand they are not to be assessed as unexplained cash credit\nunder section 68 of the Act.\"\n12. In view of the above discussions and reasoning and by relying on\nthe judicial precedents mentioned above, we find no reason

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain shall be deemed to\nhave been applied to charitable or religious purposes because of\ninsertion of Section 11(1A) of the Act which has been specifically\ninserted to allow this exemption by Finance No. 2 Act 1971 with\nretrospective effect from 1.4.1962\"\nThis fully applies to facts of present case.\nAbove stated legal position more strongly applies

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B of the Act, there should be material available to prove that the assessee has invested more than what was recorded in its books of account, which is absent in this case. There was not even an attempt to show by any enquiry that otherwise the land in the area was more expensive then reflected in books

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD (FORMELY KNOWN AS NEEL AUTO PVT LTD), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B of the Act, there should be material available to prove that the assessee has invested more than what was recorded in its books of account, which is absent in this case. There was not even an attempt to show by any enquiry that otherwise the land in the area was more expensive then reflected in books

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B of the Act, there should be material available to prove that the assessee has invested more than what was recorded in its books of account, which is absent in this case. There was not even an attempt to show by any enquiry that otherwise the land in the area was more expensive then reflected in books

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD (FORMELY KNOWN AS NEEL AUTO PVT LTD), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B of the Act, there should be material available to prove that the assessee has invested more than what was recorded in its books of account, which is absent in this case. There was not even an attempt to show by any enquiry that otherwise the land in the area was more expensive then reflected in books

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI vs. NEEL METAL PRODUCTS LTD (FORMELY KNOWN AS NEEL AUTO PVT LTD), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

69B of the Act, there should be material available to prove that the assessee has invested more than what was recorded in its books of account, which is absent in this case. There was not even an attempt to show by any enquiry that otherwise the land in the area was more expensive then reflected in books