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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gain has\nto be assessed as unexplained. The Hon'ble ITAT have held as under: -\n\n\"14. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court In the case of\nSumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 1TR 8012002-TIOL-885-SC-IT-LB Is\nsquarely applicable in this case. Though the assessee has received the\namounts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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 has to be assessed as unexplained. The Hon'ble ITAT have held as under:- "14. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT [1995] 214 1TR 801 = 2002-TIOL-885-SC-IT-LB is squarely applicable in this case. Though the assessee has received the amounts

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 credit to be added under deeming provisions of section 68. Further, there is no finding or any whisper in the impugned orders that some unaccounted money has been routed through some accommodation entry provider or getting the bogus long-term capital gain

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

capital gain (“LTCG”) and denial of deduction of stamp duty of Rs. 2,94,000/- in its computation thereof. The Ld. CIT(A) discussed the matter in para 12 of his appellate order. According to him, despite being asked no evidence of payment of the said stamp duty was submitted nor any reply was filed to his show cause that

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

unexplained income. 8. You reply in this regard should reach this office by 19.01.2023 at 11:30 A.M. Yọu may also personally or through AR attend to the hearing of the case. In case nothing is heard from you by 19.01.2023, then it will be presumed that you have nothing to say / submit in this matter and the matter will

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

unexplained income. 8. You reply in this regard should reach this office by 19.01.2023 at 11:30 A.M. Yọu may also personally or through AR attend to the hearing of the case. In case nothing is heard from you by 19.01.2023, then it will be presumed that you have nothing to say / submit in this matter and the matter will

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

unexplained income. 8. You reply in this regard should reach this office by 19.01.2023 at 11:30 A.M. Yọu may also personally or through AR attend to the hearing of the case. In case nothing is heard from you by 19.01.2023, then it will be presumed that you have nothing to say / submit in this matter and the matter will

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

unexplained cash credit to be added under deeming provisions of section 68. Further, there is no finding or any whisper in the impugned orders that some unaccounted money has been routed through some accommodation entry provider or getting the bogus long-term capital gain

ACIT, CIRCLE-28(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJU JAIN, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

money of LTCG beneficiaries into their accounts/books in the garb of LTCG totally exempt from incidence of taxation in a clandestine manner. The Assessing Officer thus rejected the claim of exempt income earned by way of Long Term Capital Gains disclosed by the assessee in relation to the scrip namely ETTL (previously known as Malti Textiles Ltd.) and invoked Section

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:-

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 18. In the first appellate proceedings, it was held that assessee had produced sufficient evidence in support of proof of identity of the creditors and confirmation of transactions by many documents, such as, share application form etc. First appellate authority also noted that there was no requirement under section

DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain claimed by him was genuine. 4,11 In the present case, I find that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proof and the AO, on the other hand, has proved that the claim of the appellant was incorrect. The enquiry conducted by SEBI was further corroborated by the investigation carried out by the Directorate

DENESH KUMAR SACHDEVA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-56(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain claimed by him was genuine. 4,11 In the present case, I find that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proof and the AO, on the other hand, has proved that the claim of the appellant was incorrect. The enquiry conducted by SEBI was further corroborated by the investigation carried out by the Directorate

DINESH KUMAR SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-56(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

capital gain claimed by him was genuine. 4,11 In the present case, I find that the appellant has failed to discharge its burden of proof and the AO, on the other hand, has proved that the claim of the appellant was incorrect. The enquiry conducted by SEBI was further corroborated by the investigation carried out by the Directorate

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains as unexplained money u/s 69A on protective basis and further addition of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- is made

SEEMA GOEL,DELHI vs. CIT A, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

capital gains as unexplained money u/s 69A on protective basis and further addition of Rs. 1,54,00,000/- is made