GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain. Accordingly Rs.74,487/- (3% of sale value i.e. Rs.24,82,890/- is being added under Section 69C as unexplained

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain taxable at the rate of 30%, profit on sale of securities claimed exempt under section 10 (38) and loss on sale of securities shown as long term capital loss amounting in all to Rs. 119966924/- as income from business. Consequently, assessment order under section 143 (3 of the act was passed on 6/2/2013 determining the total taxable income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

gain taxable at the rate of 30%, profit on sale of securities claimed exempt under section 10 (38) and loss on sale of securities shown as long term capital loss amounting in all to Rs. 119966924/- as income from business. Consequently, assessment order under section 143 (3 of the act was passed on 6/2/2013 determining the total taxable income

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

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Capital Gain accruing to the appellant under Section 70 of the Act. 5. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate the evidence tendered by the appellant to support the claim of set off under Section 70, hence the findings mechanically recorded on borrowed inference in disregard of evidence, based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations are misconceived and misplaced

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

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

capital gains on sale of penny stocks. 22 Krishan Devi iii) Very recently Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 1TA No. 49/2018 pronounced on 17.01.2019 in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. NDR Promotors Pvt. Ltd. almost similar circumstances held that "we have no hesitation in holding that the transactions in questions were clearly sham and make belief with excellent

ANUPAMA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

capital gains were earned by the assessee within a short period of time by investing in penny stock whose fundamental/financials had no support, was neither the result of co-incidence nor of a genuine investment activities but were created through well planned and an executed scheme in which Company brokers and buyers and sellers of the scrip worked deliberately

BHUSHAN GARG (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

capital gains were earned by the assessee within a short period of time by investing in penny stock whose fundamental/financials had no support, was neither the result of co-incidence nor of a genuine investment activities but were created through well planned and an executed scheme in which Company brokers and buyers and sellers of the scrip worked deliberately

RAJESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

capital gains were earned by the assessee within a short period of time by investing in penny stock whose fundamental/financials had no support, was neither the result of co-incidence nor of a genuine investment activities but were created through well planned and an executed scheme in which Company brokers and buyers and sellers of the scrip worked deliberately

PUSHPA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

capital gains were earned by the assessee within a short period of time by investing in penny stock whose fundamental/financials had no support, was neither the result of co-incidence nor of a genuine investment activities but were created through well planned and an executed scheme in which Company brokers and buyers and sellers of the scrip worked deliberately

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

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 , 69B, 69C

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 , 69B, 69C

MUKESH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-41(1), NEW DELHI

section 9 of Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956; 7 SA No.152/Del/2020 Sh. Mukesh Mittal vs. ITO e) That all the transaction of sales had been done through screen based trading on recognized stock exchange. The assessee doesn’t have any details about the identity of the persons to whom he sold the shares; f) That it is an undisputed fact