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.1,42,208/- on account of alleged commission paid invoking\nsection 69C

VIPIN JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

Capital Gains does not suffice as a valid ground for undermining the assessee's legitimate, document-supported transactions. Without direct evidence or inquiry implicating the assessee, the application of Section 68, and consequently Section 69C

ADITYA SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Aditya Saraf Vs. Ito, Ward-17(4) B-45, Inder Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 012 Pan Awwps1249K (Appellant) (Respondent)

69C of the Income Tax Act based on suspicion, conjectures and without any evidence is unjust illegal arbitrary, illusory , unwarranted and deserve to be deleted. 2. That the action of the CIT(A) in not accepting the Long term capital gain of Rs 65,65,909/- as genuine in-spite of all documentary evidences filed and still disallowing the claim

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

section 68 of the Act has no application to the case of the appellant. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by making an addition of Rs. 9,09,171/- representing presumptive commission alleged to be paid by appellant @ 3% to operator for providing long term capital gain and taxed

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

section 68 of the Act has no application to the case of the appellant. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts by making an addition of Rs. 9,09,171/- representing presumptive commission alleged to be paid by appellant @ 3% to operator for providing long term capital gain and taxed

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

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 chargeable

JAINMATI JAIN,YOJANA VIHAR vs. ITO WARD 56(2) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandrajainmati Jain Vs Ito C-513, Yojanavihar, Ward 56(2) New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Agkpj4857G Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Tanya, Adv Revenue By Sh. Om Praksh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025 Order

69C is deleted. Accordingly, Assessee's claim for exemption u/s. 10 on Long Term Capital Gain is allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. The above order of the Tribunal in the case of Vipin Jain (supra) was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Hon'ble High

RIAZ MUNSHI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 17(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain assessee must have paid commission to operator/brokers, the Assessing Officer added back commission expenditure of Rs.4,85,120 under Section 69C

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

69C of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. At the outset, we find that the very same issue in dispute before us came up for adjudication before this Delhi Tribunal in the case of assessee Shri Sanjeev Agarwal in his individual

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 of the Act. The assessee has also challenged 2 I.T.A. No.959/Del/2021 addition of Rs.1,02,824/- on account of unexplained transaction expense under section 69C

DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 102 of Indian evidence act makes it clear that initial onus is on person who substantially asserts a claim. If the onus is discharged by him and a case is made out, the onus shifts on to deponent. It is pertinent to mention here that the phrase "burden of proof' is used in two distinct meanings

DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 102 of Indian evidence act makes it clear that initial onus is on person who substantially asserts a claim. If the onus is discharged by him and a case is made out, the onus shifts on to deponent. It is pertinent to mention here that the phrase "burden of proof' is used in two distinct meanings

DENESH KUMAR SACHDEVA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-56(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 102 of Indian evidence act makes it clear that initial onus is on person who substantially asserts a claim. If the onus is discharged by him and a case is made out, the onus shifts on to deponent. It is pertinent to mention here that the phrase "burden of proof' is used in two distinct meanings

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

capital gain - During search, diary of a third party was seized from residence of assessee - This diary had notings which showed an amount of Rs. 1.15 crores as sale consideration - Assessing Officer observed that in registered sale deed, total consideration was shown at Rs. 29.50 lakhs - By making presumption as per section 292C, he considered sale consideration shown in diary

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

capital gain - During search, diary of a third party was seized from residence of assessee - This diary had notings which showed an amount of Rs. 1.15 crores as sale consideration - Assessing Officer observed that in registered sale deed, total consideration was shown at Rs. 29.50 lakhs - By making presumption as per section 292C, he considered sale consideration shown in diary

AMIT JINDAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 59(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16] Amit Jindal, Ito-59(3), 105, Defence Enclave, D-Block, Delhi-110092 Vs Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi -110002 Pan-Aflpj2122A Assessee Revenue

capital gains 3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in passing the unlawful order on surmises as well as used General in nature information accessible and available in the public realm by dismissing the Appeal even without considering the Facts and contention in respect of Admittedly being 10 accepted the investment of Rs. 50,000/- as part of Assets

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI vs. DEEPTI AGRAWAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshdcit Vs. Deepti Agrawal Central Circle – 15 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi-110 054 Pan No. Aampa 0573 C (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 48/Del/2024 (In Ita No.224/Del/2024) (Assessment Year : 2016-17) Deepti Agrawal Vs. Dcit 1-A, Maharaja Lal Lane, Central Circle – 15 Civil Lines, New Delhi New Delhi-110 054 Pan No. Aampa 0573 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Gains (LTCG) on sale of shares of Capital Trade Links Ltd. The ITA No. 224 /Del/2024 CO No.48/Del/2024 Deepti Agarwal 3 interconnected issue involved therein is with regard to alleged commission expenditure added as unexplained expenditure under section 69C

DHARAMENDRA BHANDARI (HUF),GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roydharamendra Bhandari (Huf), Vs. Cit(A), A-126, Sushant Lok-1, National Faceless Appeal Gurgaon, Haryana Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadhd2238J Assessee By : Shri R. S. Ahuja, Ca Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri T James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2024

69C of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a HUF having income from house property, capital gains and other sources during the year under consideration. The return of income for the Asst Year 2013-14 was filed