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 of Rs. 24,82,890/- on sale of shares sold on recognized stock exchange and eligible for exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and bringing to tax as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XIX, New Delhi has confirm the addition despite the transaction having been done through proper

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

investment details of family members of Bhushan steel group in various companies along with payment made to Shri Raj Kumar Kedia and transactions of their long-term capital gain earned with his help. Such documentary evidences listed such are the Annexure-E and Annexure -A. The learned assessing officer noted that material found and seized from the premises of Shri

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

investment details of family members of Bhushan steel group in various companies along with payment made to Shri Raj Kumar Kedia and transactions of their long-term capital gain earned with his help. Such documentary evidences listed such are the Annexure-E and Annexure -A. The learned assessing officer noted that material found and seized from the premises of Shri

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

unexplained income of the assessee alongwith the unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6% of the total Long Term Capital Gain for arranging those entries. The AO determined the total bogus Long Term Capital Gain for the year under consideration at Rs.20,05,651/- and by adding 6% of the said gain towards commission expenses amounting to Rs.1,20,339/-. Accordingly

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

unexplained income of the assessee alongwith the unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6% of the total Long Term Capital Gain for arranging those entries. The AO determined the total bogus Long Term Capital Gain for the year under consideration at Rs.20,05,651/- and by adding 6% of the said gain towards commission expenses amounting to Rs.1,20,339/-. Accordingly

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

unexplained income of the assessee alongwith the unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6% of the total Long Term Capital Gain for arranging those entries. The AO determined the total bogus Long Term Capital Gain for the year under consideration at Rs.20,05,651/- and by adding 6% of the said gain towards commission expenses amounting to Rs.1,20,339/-. Accordingly

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

unexplained income of the assessee alongwith the unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6% of the total Long Term Capital Gain for arranging those entries. The AO determined the total bogus Long Term Capital Gain for the year under consideration at Rs.20,05,651/- and by adding 6% of the said gain towards commission expenses amounting to Rs.1,20,339/-. Accordingly

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

unexplained income of the assessee alongwith the unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6% of the total Long Term Capital Gain for arranging those entries. The AO determined the total bogus Long Term Capital Gain for the year under consideration at Rs.20,05,651/- and by adding 6% of the said gain towards commission expenses amounting to Rs.1,20,339/-. Accordingly

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

unexplained income of the assessee alongwith the unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6% of the total Long Term Capital Gain for arranging those entries. The AO determined the total bogus Long Term Capital Gain for the year under consideration at Rs.20,05,651/- and by adding 6% of the said gain towards commission expenses amounting to Rs.1,20,339/-. Accordingly

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

capital gain in penny stock under purview of unexplained cash under section 68 of the Act. 18. Sanjay Kaul vs. PCIT (2020) 199 taxmann.com 470(Delhi): In this case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where the assessee was not regular investor in shares and had only invested

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. MANI KAKKAR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

unexplained investment in KG Farms and Jyoti Farms? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NITIN KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

unexplained investment in KG Farms and Jyoti Farms? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ASHA KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

unexplained investment in KG Farms and Jyoti Farms? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ROHIT KEDAR NATH GUPTA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

unexplained investment in KG Farms and Jyoti Farms? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

unexplained investment in KG Farms and Jyoti Farms? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. KEDAR NATH GUPTA

unexplained investment in KG Farms and Jyoti Farms? (2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming deletion of addition of `19,35,769/- on account of undisclosed capital gains

MANISH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

investment found with assessee as only balance available with him of Rs. 1,81,234/- and therefore, he could not have deposited the cash in his bank account of Rs. 13,20,000/- (-) Rs. 5,00,000/- remaining Rs. 8,20,000/- was added towards the cash deposit with Syndicate Bank. 3. With respect to the bank account with Bank

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. KRISHNA SHRIRAM, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

capital gain or business income. The circulars cited by the AR are applicable in the present case. In view of the above, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 14. Further in regard to the gift received by the assessee of Rs.7.92 crores, the findings reached