RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

unexplained credit in the hands of the assesse and taxing the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 4.3 Further drawing our attention towards the relevant observations noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the First Appellate order vide para no. 4.3.25 to 4.3.26, the Ld. SR. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) also considered action of the AO, documentary evidence

RUBY SINGH ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

unexplained credit in the hands of the assesse and taxing the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 4.3 Further drawing our attention towards the relevant observations noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the First Appellate order vide para no. 4.3.25 to 4.3.26, the Ld. SR. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) also considered action of the AO, documentary evidence

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

unexplained credit in the hands of the assesse and taxing the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 4.3 Further drawing our attention towards the relevant observations noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the First Appellate order vide para no. 4.3.25 to 4.3.26, the Ld. SR. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) also considered action of the AO, documentary evidence

RUBY SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

unexplained credit in the hands of the assesse and taxing the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 4.3 Further drawing our attention towards the relevant observations noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the First Appellate order vide para no. 4.3.25 to 4.3.26, the Ld. SR. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) also considered action of the AO, documentary evidence

RUBY SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the seven captioned appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accoutant Member

unexplained credit in the hands of the assesse and taxing the same u/s. 115BBE of the Act. 4.3 Further drawing our attention towards the relevant observations noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in the First Appellate order vide para no. 4.3.25 to 4.3.26, the Ld. SR. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) also considered action of the AO, documentary evidence

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)

Capital Gain treated as Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. 2 Addition on account of unexplained 1,89,043/- expenditure

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

credited by sums on different dates aggregating to Rs. 1,18,34,753/-. He sought explanation because the Ld. AO had information that the investigation made by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata had revealed that some unscrupulous operators in the capital market were running a scheme of providing entries of long term capital gain for commission. The methodology adopted involved

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains as unexplained\ncash credit under section 68.\nPr. CIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF (2024) 463 ITR 711 (Bom).\n\n2) Where assessee purchased shares of a company when trading of said\ncompany was suspended and sold same and claimed exemption under\nsection 10(38), in absence of any material brought on record to suggest\nthat purchase and sale

ACE CABS LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), DELHI, C R BUILDING

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanace Cabs Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1 (2), 562, Silver Oak Lane, Delhi. M.G. Road, Ghitorni, Delhi – 110 030. (Pan : Aaica4494R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 12.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Submitted An Application Under Rule 29 Of The Itat Rules For Admitting The Additional Evidences & The Contents Thereof Are Reproduced Below:-

cash in the disguise of long-term capital gain from sale of shares of some penny stock company, then the addition should have been made in his hands and not in the hands of assessee company. 17. Long-term capital gain from sale of shares of Shital Leasing and Finance Ltd, if according to the AO, is a sham transaction

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.

unexplained cash credits, is not substantiated by any credible evidence. Significantly, there is a glaring absence of any material that would indicate the assessee used an accommodation entry provider for the purpose of creating fictitious long-term capital gains

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)

unexplained cash credit is taxable under section 68 of the Act @ 30% as provided under section 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. AO added Rs. 65,65,909/- to the income of the assessee alongwith brokerage / commission paid to the entry operator @ 5% on Rs. 65,65,909/- which worked out to Rs. 3,28,295/-. The Ld. AO completed

DCIT, DELHI vs. JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

cash credits. The amount under question is sale proceeds„ Once a particular amount is already offered for taxation, the same cannot be considered as ITBA/APL/S/250/2024æ25/1074980455(1 8 | P a g e ITA No.3609 & 4282/Del/2025 unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. The pre-dominant clement for making addition u/s 68 of the Act is the onus casted upon

JMK JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Shop No. 302, Building New Delhi No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Jmk Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Shop No. 302, Building No.2678/1, Diamond Mall, Main Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: Aabch6018F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr), Sh. Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr

cash credits. The amount under question is sale proceeds„ Once a particular amount is already offered for taxation, the same cannot be considered as ITBA/APL/S/250/2024æ25/1074980455(1 8 | P a g e ITA No.3609 & 4282/Del/2025 unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. The pre-dominant clement for making addition u/s 68 of the Act is the onus casted upon

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

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

capital gain is actually in the nature of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, he added

GUNJAN BHAGERIA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

cash utilities for discharge of credit card bills and Rs. 3,34,750/- being cheques issued by third parties in favour of the assessee’s credit card bills, being one from unexplained sources chargeable to tax u/s 68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act, requires no interference. 14. As with regard to disallowance of LTCG on shares in Monotype India

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

cash equivalents and short-term loans and advances together with incremental revenue from operations, running in several crores and incremental profit before taxes since 2013 onwards. Details of assets held and revenue from operations as reported by CTL for the period from AY 2013-14 to FY 2019-20 is extracted below. AYs: 2016-17& 2017-18 6.11. Ld. Counsel

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

cash equivalents and short-term loans and advances together with incremental revenue from operations, running in several crores and incremental profit before taxes since 2013 onwards. Details of assets held and revenue from operations as reported by CTL for the period from AY 2013-14 to FY 2019-20 is extracted below. AYs: 2016-17& 2017-18 6.11. Ld. Counsel

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD vs. BHARTI JAIN, DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward 1(1), Vs. Bharti Jain, Faridabad Qd-61, Vishakha Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi-88 (Pan: Aftpg37441G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and Rs. 39,690/-on account of cash commission u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 cannot