SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. While so observing, the authorities held that the assessee had not tendered

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain at\nRs.17,13,051/- by denying exemption u/s 54 in sheer\ndisregard of evidences filed before both AO and first\nappellate authority.\n3. Ld. CIT(A)-3 has erred in law and on facts by confirming\nthe action of AO by assessing a sum of Rs.8666666/-\n(difference of stamp value and actual sale consideration)\nas undisclosed income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

undisclosed income is not sustainable. According to the Assessee its income was entirely exempt under Section 10(22) of the Act and hence it was not required to file a return. Section 139(1) of the Act enjoins every person to file a return of income if the income for which the person is assessable under the Act exceeds

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains. It is noted that on similar facts and circumstances,\nHon'ble ITAT A-Bench, Chandigarh in the case of Abhimanyu Soln v. ACIT\n[IT Appeal No. 951 (CHD.) of 2016, dated 18-4-2016), have expressed the\nview that the undisclosed Income

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)

undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gains has to be assessed as undisclosed credit by holding as under

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

undisclosed income as long term capital gain. 20. Suman Poddar vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC): In this case

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, 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, 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

M/S. RJ CORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, 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-28, NEW DELHI vs. PSK FINANCE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

income on account of long term capital gains on sale of the above shares (including the undisclosed cash consideration of Rs.4

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

Capital Trade Links were rigged & manipulated and were increased through circular transaction by unscrupulous elements. Keeping in view you are requested to explain why not gain (LTCG) amounting to Rs. 30305713/- to be assessed as undisclosed income

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

Capital Trade Links were rigged & manipulated and were increased through circular transaction by unscrupulous elements. Keeping in view you are requested to explain why not gain (LTCG) amounting to Rs. 30305713/- to be assessed as undisclosed income

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE -10(1), NEW DELHI vs. H B LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Joint Commissioner Of Vs H B Leasing & Finance Income Tax, (Osd), Company Ltd. Circle 10(1), C. R. Building, H-72, Connaught Circus, I. P. Estate, Delhi Connaught Place, Delhi Pan:Aaach0713N Appellant Respondent C.O No. 94/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 1245/Del/2025 A.Y. 1988-89) H B Leasing & Finance Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Company Ltd. Tax, Osd, H-72, Connaught Circus, Circle 10(1) Connaught Place, Delhi C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, Pan:Aaach0713N Delhi

undisclosed income. The AO could proceed on the basis of material detected at the time of search and the evidence gathered. Under s. 132(4), the authorised officer may, during the course of search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of accounts, documents, money, bullion, jewellery

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

undisclosed long term capital gains on sale of loose diamonds. Subsequently, against the said order passed by the Ld. AO making above addition, appeal was preferred by the assessee which is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 153C r.w.s

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL, DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

undisclosed long term capital gains on sale of loose diamonds. Subsequently, against the said order passed by the Ld. AO making above addition, appeal was preferred by the assessee which is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 153C r.w.s

ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL,GURGAON vs. PR, CIT CENTRAL DELHI-1, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

undisclosed long term capital gains on sale of loose diamonds. Subsequently, against the said order passed by the Ld. AO making above addition, appeal was preferred by the assessee which is still pending before the Ld. CIT(A). In fact the appeal preferred before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order passed by the Ld. AO under Section 153C r.w.s

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. M.M. BUILDCON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

Income Tax (Appeals) i) Alleged short term 79,71,38,532 43,49,47,500 capital gain ii) Undisclosed income