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

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

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

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 5. Brief fact as culled out from records are that assessee inter-alia has claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Long Term Capital Gain for Rs.3,03,05,713/- on sale of 3,94,343 shares of public listed company Capital Trade Links Ltd (CTL). Detail of the same

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

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 5. Brief fact as culled out from records are that assessee inter-alia has claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act of Long Term Capital Gain for Rs.3,03,05,713/- on sale of 3,94,343 shares of public listed company Capital Trade Links Ltd (CTL). Detail of the same

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)

Capital gain on sale of 32500 Equity Shares of a listed company being Dhanleela Investments Limited u/s 68 of the IT Act. 2. An addition of Rs. 3,28,295/- has been made based on the assumption that the assessee must have paid 5% commission on Rs. 65,65,909/- which has not been declared in the books of account

SMT. RITU SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

unexplained cash deposits and disallowance of Rs. 11,49,116/- being capital gain amount not deposited in bank. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings vide order sheet entry dated 07.06.2016 the Ld. CIT(A) required the assessee to submit certain information / evidence including show cause why exemption under section 54 be not proportionately

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. The void in material evidence makes it patently unjust to charge the assessee under this section. Insufficiency of Nationwide Investigation

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

investment in shares and has earned capital gain both in preceding and succeeding years. vi Neither the trading in shares of Capital Trade Link Ltd. is suspended as on date nor the share is delisted by SEBI vii Status as per ROC and Financial viability of Capital Trade Link Ltd. is corroborated by demonstrating its Incremental Revenue from operation running

DCIT, CC, GZBD , GZBD vs. ANJALI MITTAL , GZBD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Anjali Mittal, Income Tax, B-7, Ashok Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201 001. Ghaziabad. Pan Aigpm4257R (Appellant) (Respondent)

investment made by the assessee, although not entirely sourced from capital gain, but was within stipulated time and more than capital gain earned by him, the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54F. The assessee brought on record evidence to show that the family members paid the amounts from their respective bank accounts to meet the cost

ITO, WARD-4(4), GURGAON vs. TRIBHAWAN KUMAR PARNAMI, GURGAON

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains taxable in the hands of the appellant i.e Rs. 23,33,333/- and the remaining addition of Rs. 3,13,77,600/- deleted despite the fact that the computation of sale consideration of the property by the AO based on the incriminating documents (Annexure-A-2) page no. 166. The incriminating documents (A-2 page 166) actually pertains

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

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

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

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

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

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

Investments Ltd., however, assessee has not offered such long term capital gain in the return of income. Further, Assessing Officer noticed that as per the inquiry conducted by the Directorate of Investigation, Calcutta, it was found that an organized racket of 2 generating bogus entries of long term capital gain, which is otherwise exempt from tax, is in active operation

ANIL BHARDWAJ,ZAMBIA vs. DCIT-ACIT-INT-TAX GURGAON, GURGAON

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

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1250/Del/2024 (A.Y 2020-21) Anil Bhardwaj Dcit/Acit 5994, Benakale Road, P. O Vs. International Tax, Box No. 31776, Northmead, Office Of Acit-Dcit Int- Near Rhodes Park School, Tax, Gurgaon Lusaka-10101, Zambia, Ny (Respondent) Pan No. Anlpb2321F (Appellant)

Capital Gain (‘STCG’ for short) and making disallowances of the exemption available u/s 54F of the Act by the Revenue Authorities is totally unwarranted and the same has been done without considering valuation report of Government approved valuer and contrary to the CBDT Circular on jewellery. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the said disallowance has been made without referring

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

investment in shares of other companies also and it is not that this was a solitary transaction. Further, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that following documents and evidence goes to show and prove the genuineness of sale and purchase of shares which are as under :- A. Copy of abstract of cash evidencing the payment made against the share purchased

RAHUL NATH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

investment and the building was completed within the stipulated period as per Section 54F of the Act. As regards the issue of learned CIT(A) allowing the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act on the payment of ₹1,75,32,143/- made to Luthra and Luthra as expenditure incurred on transfer of shares, which was made pursuant

ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI vs. RAHUL NATH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay

investment and the building was completed within the stipulated period as per Section 54F of the Act. As regards the issue of learned CIT(A) allowing the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Act on the payment of ₹1,75,32,143/- made to Luthra and Luthra as expenditure incurred on transfer of shares, which was made pursuant