JAGDISH MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), JHANDEWALAN

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. 3. Brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 30.07.2012 declaring total income at Rs.195,80,710/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee company was reopened

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 64(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Acit 25, Surya Niketan, Circle – 64 (1) Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aiopg4255H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rakesh Sehgal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/06/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Penny Stock rejecting the claim of the assessee and confirming the addition of Rs 46,01,445/- in the hands of the appellant is an incorrect finding in view of a large number of cases of the Benches of Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi and others especially a very detailed judgment of SMC Bench of Delhi in ITA No 457/Del/2018

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -12 vs. SMT. BINDU GARG

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

delay of 13 days in re-filing ITA 130/2020 & ITA 131/2020, is condoned. 2. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 125/2020, ITA 130/2020 & ITA 131/2020 3. The present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] are directed against the common order dated 6th August, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-12 vs. HARDEV SAHAI GUPTA ( GARG)

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

delay of 13 days in re-filing ITA 130/2020 & ITA 131/2020, is condoned. 2. The applications stand disposed of. ITA 125/2020, ITA 130/2020 & ITA 131/2020 3. The present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] are directed against the common order dated 6th August, 2019 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned

AKSHAY JAIN,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 4. In various grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.30,19,500/- made u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE on account of sale of equity shares. 5. The facts in brief are that assessee had declared Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s. Jolly Plastics Industries

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. M/S FINANCIAL WORLD (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

delay is condoned. 6. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 242/2023 7. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:30.05.2023 15:27:09 Signature Not Verified ITA 242/2023 Page 2 of 3 8. The appeal seeks to assail the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

RISHAB JHUNJHUNWALA,DELHI vs. AO WARD-1(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Rishab Jhunjhunwala Vs Pcit, Delhi-1 E-28 Geetanjali Enclave, Delhi Pan No. Aeupj8955M (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing on merit. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal as under: 1. That Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law as well as on facts in setting aside the assessment order passed by AO on 21-12-2017 u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 because

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. NARENDRA AGGARWAL

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

condoned. CM APPL. 63834/2023(410 Days Delay in Refiling) The applications shall stand disposed of. Delay. 1. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITA 740/2023, CM APPL. 5205/2024 1 “A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA

delay of 69 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. The application shall stand disposed of. ITA 356/2024 1. Notice. Since the respondents are duly represented by learned counsel, no further steps need be taken. 2. Prima face, we find merit in the challenge which stands raised with Mr. Kumar drawing our attention to the facts which stand recorded

SAURABH SINGLA ,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 36(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Saurabh Singla, Vs Ito, K-2, Second Floor, Model Town-Ii, Ward-36(4), New Delhi-110009. New Delhi. Pan-Amops7206A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Suresh K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2021

penny stock. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.23,27,375/- by simply replying on the reports/ information which are contrary to the evidence submitted by the appellant in support of the transaction of the purchase/sale of shares. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and in facts in circumstances

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-12 vs. VINOD KUAMR MITTAL AND SONS HUF

delay of 105 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. Application is disposed of. ITA 136/2024 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-12 seeks to impugn the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“ITAT”] dated 12 May 2023 and proposes the following questions for our consideration: “A. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. NARENDRA AGGARWAL DECEASED THROUGH LRS

condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, there is delay of 410 days in re- filing the appeal. 3. Issue notice to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including e- mail. 4. List the above-captioned application on 04.03.2024. ITA 740/2023 page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 DELHI vs. RIAZ MUNSHI

Bench: The Next Date Of Hearing.

condonation of delay of 232 days in filing the appeal] 2. Mr Abhishek Maratha, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that he will place the case papers which were filed before the statutory authorities on the record of this court. 2.1 Leave in that behalf is granted. 3. Briefly, the case of the appellant/revenue is that the long

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -12 vs. KARUNA GARG

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA 477/2022 1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 6th August, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2772/Del/2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the ITAT

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -12 vs. SMT. BINDU GARG

delay of 175 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. 2. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 519/2022 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”] in ITA No. 1168/Del/2019. 4. The Tribunal via the said order disposed of not only