RACHNA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

penny stock from the Investigation Wing, he disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.29,71,941/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised grounds of appeal as well as filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions, ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition made

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

house property, capital gains and income from other sources. The assessee e-filed return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 declaring total income at Rs.34,61,310/-. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny through CPC guidelines/procedure on the ground as stated in the assessment year that suspicious sales transactions in shares and Long Term Capital Gains (penny stock

MUKESH MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-41(1), NEW DELHI

house property, short term capital gain and other sources. Besides this, the assessee has declared income from long term capital gains to the tune of Rs. 5,83,61,303/- which has been claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee had sold 7,50,000 shares of M/s Radford Global

SURESH ASRANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 35(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Smt Diva Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar

house property, Business and income from other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that the assessee has shown long term capital gain of Rs 1,68,29,438/- from sale of shares and has claimed the same as, exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. 4. Further, it was observed that assessee has earned long term

DHARAMENDRA BHANDARI (HUF),GURGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roydharamendra Bhandari (Huf), Vs. Cit(A), A-126, Sushant Lok-1, National Faceless Appeal Gurgaon, Haryana Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadhd2238J Assessee By : Shri R. S. Ahuja, Ca Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri T James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 02/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/10/2024

house property, capital gains and other sources during the year under consideration. The return of income for the Asst Year 2013-14 was filed by the assessee on 31.7.2013 declaring total income of Rs 72,71,110/- and exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act of Rs 14,07,66,123/- being Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale

NAZ SHAZIA,MORADABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnaz Shazia, Vs. Ito, Anwar House, Ground Ward-1(1), Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini Moradabad Bye Pass Road, Moradabad Pan: Bbwps217R Assessee By : Shri V. K. Tulsian, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/01/2024

House, Ground Ward-1(1), Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini Moradabad Bye Pass Road, Moradabad PAN: BBWPS217R Assessee by : Shri V. K. Tulsian, CA Revenue by: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date of pronouncement 18/01/2024 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 1831/Del/2023 arises out of the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre

AJAY KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

house property, profit from business of commission from real estate activities, income from other sources and agricultural income, exempt income amounting to Rs. 18,84,000/- from agriculture was claimed. Further, NIL income was disclosed in the relevant column of ITR [Schedule El] relating to exempt income arising out of LTCG from transactions where STT has been paid. [ii] However

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penny stock and therefore the assessee\ndid not disclose in his return of income and taxed the Long Term Capital\nGain ofRs.51,52,564/-, which was not contested by the assessee before\nthe ld. CIT(A).\n5. The Assessing Officer regarding the sale and purchase of residential\nimmovable property by the assessee being House

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

house property, capital gains & income from other sources. Assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.50,36,026/-. During scrutiny proceedings, Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee has claimed “capital gains” of Rs.2,72,85,500/- as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) from the sale of scrip

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

house property of Rs.2,67,889/-, income from other sources of Rs.85,796/-. There is no income from business and profession and income from capital gains. The assessee in the reply before the A.O. claimed long term capital gains on sale of shares of M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. (“EBFL”). The sale value of 15,600/- shares

SUNIL GHORAWAT,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-9(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmash. Sunil Ghorawat, Vs. Acit, G-73, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Circle-9(2), Nagar-1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acspg7932M

house property, income from business and profession, income from capital gain and income from other sources. The ld AO observed that the assessee has claimed short term capital loss of Rs. 92,91,495/- during the year under consideration and sought for complete details of the same from the assessee, which were duly furnished. Out of the total short term

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

stock was found in the survey for which separate addition has already been made, it cannot be further presumed that the assessee made sales outside the books, specially when the survey was followed by the search and neither during the course of survey nor during the course of search, any evidence of sale outside the books was found. In view

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

stock was found in the survey for which separate addition has already been made, it cannot be further presumed that the assessee made sales outside the books, specially when the survey was followed by the search and neither during the course of survey nor during the course of search, any evidence of sale outside the books was found. In view

RAHUL MITTAL,DELHI vs. PR, CIT-10, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

Penny Stock. The reason for scrutiny was “Suspicious Sale Transaction in Shares” and the AO had failed to verify the same and did not conduct any enquiry. No justification was provided regarding such sudden rise in the value of share. Apparently market forces were not the dominating factors behind the rise in value of share. Therefore, it is found that

ANUPAMA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

penny stock company M/s. Jackson Investment Limited which is considered as unexplained cash credit. Addition of Rs.6,14,000/- was accordingly made. The A.O. also noted that entry have been obtained after paying Commission. Therefore, addition of Rs.18,420/- was made under section 69C of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained expenditure incurred for obtaining LTCG accommodation entry

PUSHPA GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

penny stock company M/s. Jackson Investment Limited which is considered as unexplained cash credit. Addition of Rs.6,14,000/- was accordingly made. The A.O. also noted that entry have been obtained after paying Commission. Therefore, addition of Rs.18,420/- was made under section 69C of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained expenditure incurred for obtaining LTCG accommodation entry

BHUSHAN GARG (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

penny stock company M/s. Jackson Investment Limited which is considered as unexplained cash credit. Addition of Rs.6,14,000/- was accordingly made. The A.O. also noted that entry have been obtained after paying Commission. Therefore, addition of Rs.18,420/- was made under section 69C of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained expenditure incurred for obtaining LTCG accommodation entry

RAJESH GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-40(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.5971/Del

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

penny stock company M/s. Jackson Investment Limited which is considered as unexplained cash credit. Addition of Rs.6,14,000/- was accordingly made. The A.O. also noted that entry have been obtained after paying Commission. Therefore, addition of Rs.18,420/- was made under section 69C of the I.T. Act on account of unexplained expenditure incurred for obtaining LTCG accommodation entry