UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

money and there is a specific query about the provisions of property no. 56/7, DB Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, involving the alleged unaccounted payment of Rs.2 crore out of which Rs.1 crore pertains to the assessee. We further observe from the copy of the assessee’s submissions dated 15.11.11filed before 13 Uday Kumar Vaish the AO replying

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 in high risk stocks of obscure companies with no business

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

money in the garb of exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Therefore, the total Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee against those bogus/sham transactions had to be treated as unexplained

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

money in the garb of exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Therefore, the total Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee against those bogus/sham transactions had to be treated as unexplained

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

money in the garb of exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Therefore, the total Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee against those bogus/sham transactions had to be treated as unexplained

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

money in the garb of exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Therefore, the total Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee against those bogus/sham transactions had to be treated as unexplained

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

money in the garb of exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Therefore, the total Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee against those bogus/sham transactions had to be treated as unexplained

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

money in the garb of exempt Long Term Capital Gain. Therefore, the total Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee against those bogus/sham transactions had to be treated as unexplained

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

unexplained gifts by ignoring the detailed written submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the fact that even a cursory glance at the said documents would reveal that the same was only a working and did not disclose any “actual” expenditure. (4) That the order dated 29-12-2017 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

unexplained gifts by ignoring the detailed written submissions made on behalf of the Appellant and the fact that even a cursory glance at the said documents would reveal that the same was only a working and did not disclose any “actual” expenditure. (4) That the order dated 29-12-2017 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. Commissioner

SUNITA KHEMKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, JHANDEWALAN EXTN., NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. “ 2.1. That while sustaining the aforesaid addition and denying the exemption learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that, appellant was owner of equity shares of a listed company which had been held by it for a period exceeding 12 months and the same were sold on recognized 10 ITA.No

VINAY CHAUDHARY,PITAMPURA vs. ACIT INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: “Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

capital gain for sale of shares as unjustified and was considered to be as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 4. The assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68. Pr. CIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF (2024) 463 ITR 711 (Bom). 2) Where assessee purchased shares of a company when trading of said company was suspended and sold same and claimed exemption under section 10(38), in absence of any material brought on record to suggest that purchase and sale

SHRI KRISHNA SHRIRAM,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, 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 gains by the AO. Therefore, the CIT set aside the original assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer u/s. 263 to make fresh assessment. In the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3)/263, the Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee and relying on many case laws, treated the sales of shares of Mawana Sugar as business income

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 gains by the AO. Therefore, the CIT set aside the original assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer u/s. 263 to make fresh assessment. In the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3)/263, the Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the assessee and relying on many case laws, treated the sales of shares of Mawana Sugar as business income

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 commission paid to the broker in connection with the sale of KG Farms? (4) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” Mani Kakkar “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage

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 commission paid to the broker in connection with the sale of KG Farms? (4) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” Mani Kakkar “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage

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 commission paid to the broker in connection with the sale of KG Farms? (4) Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse?” Mani Kakkar “(1) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting addition of `2,27,80,000/- and `2,50,000/- made on account of undisclosed capital gains and undisclosed brokerage