MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

disallowance of the appellant's claim regarding set off and carried forward of long-term capital loss of Rs. 1,44,73,463 against the long-term capital gain

ARUN DWIVEDI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.17,13,015/- u/s\n54 of the Act and therefore the addition of Rs.17,13,015/- made by the\nAO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Accordingly, grounds no.1\nand 2 of the appeal is allowed.\n10. The Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee had\npurchased a property

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.

disallowance under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act lacks merit and should be duly revoked. Subsequently, the assessee’s claim for exemption under Section 10 on the grounds of Long-Term Capital Gain

ADDI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed as boave for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowance of exemption of Long Term Capital Gains on Equity Shares & Equity Oriented Mutual Funds exempt u/s 10(38) of Rs.8

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. VIREET INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit, Circle 17 (1) Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 21D, Friends Colony West, New Delhi – 110 065. (Pan : Aaacv2033M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 Date Of Order : 06.11.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2004-05 On 31.10.2004 Declaring Income Of Rs.34,80,69,911/-. The Same Was Processed Under Section 143 (1) Of The 2 Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) On 28.12.2004. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. In Response, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Attended From Time To Time & Submitted Relevant Information As Called For. 3. The Assessee Was Incorporated On 03.10.1983 With The Main Objects, As Per Memorandum Of Association, To Acquire & Hold Shares, Stocks, Debentures, Debenture Stocks, Bonds, Obligations & Securities Issued Or Guaranteed By Any Company Constituted Or Carried On Business In The Republic Of India. After Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Proceeded To Make The Following Additions In The Assessment Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act :-

Long term Capital Gain others treated as Rs. 2,24,90,871/- business income Short term Capital Gain treated as Rs. 16,14,264/- business income 2. Disallowance

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

disallowed the claim of the assessee and held gain on transactions of shares as short term capital gain which is stated above in brief facts of the case. 5. Fradulent nature of transaction in JASPER (SNAPDEAL):- In this para, the applicant alleged for tax evasion by the assessee in USA which is out of jurisdiction. Therefore, no comments are required

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

long term capital gain at Rs 1,09,41,612/- and short term capital gain of Rs 67,87654/-. Apart from that, the assessee has also shown income from dividend which has been claimed as exempt income. 4. The assessee has filed return of income, declaring at Rs.72,16,819/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

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

Long Term Capital Gain out of these purported share sale receipts during the financial year 2015-16 (A.Y. 2016-17) in his computation of total income (taxable at the rate of 60% as provided u/s 115BBE). This would resultant of addition of Rs. 3,03,05,713/- in the total income of the assessee.” Lastly, in para 8 while arriving

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

Long Term Capital Gain out of these purported share sale receipts during the financial year 2015-16 (A.Y. 2016-17) in his computation of total income (taxable at the rate of 60% as provided u/s 115BBE). This would resultant of addition of Rs. 3,03,05,713/- in the total income of the assessee.” Lastly, in para 8 while arriving

BHUPINDER SINGH JULKA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

disallowed the claim of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 81,42,760/- instead made an addition of Rs. 3,37,202/- on account of Short Term Capital Gain

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

Disallowance on claim of exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act on Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 1,17,34,753/-. b. Addition

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), DELHI vs. VIC ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

Long Term Capital Gain treated 34,61,63,879 Ground Nos.1 to 9 as business income 2. Short term capital gain Treated 6,71,16,180 Ground Nos.10 to as business income 18 3. Interest income 9,00,000 Ground No.19 4. Disallowance

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

long term capital gain on sale of shares is presently not taxable where security transaction tax has been paid, but a private sale of shares in an off market transaction attracts capital gains tax. It is an undisputed position that respondent Appellant is an investment company and had invested by purchasing a substantial number of shares and thereby securing right

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)

Long term capital gain of Rs 65,65,909/- as genuine in-spite of all documentary evidences filed and still disallowing

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

disallowance of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) made by the AO, claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act on the ground

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

long term unlisted equities of Rs 2,39,76,250 declared by the, assessee as capital gains as business income, without going into the facts of the relevant year and ignoring the CBDT’s circular. 3) That the CIT (Appeals)/AO has erred on facts and in law in increasing the disallowance

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

long term capital gain earned on disinvestment of shares. It was further submitted before the Ld. CIT (A) that the statement of Shri Madho Gopal Agarwal, who happens to be brother of the assessee, could not be the sole ground to draw any adverse inference against the assessee. In support of Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO the aforesaid contentions

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

long term capital gain earned on disinvestment of shares. It was further submitted before the Ld. CIT (A) that the statement of Shri Madho Gopal Agarwal, who happens to be brother of the assessee, could not be the sole ground to draw any adverse inference against the assessee. In support of Gopal Agarwal & Ors. Vs. ITO the aforesaid contentions