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 for Rs.17,13,015/- is\nadded to the income of the assessee has not declared in its return. In\nview of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that\nthe assessee company has furnished inaccurate particulars of its\nincome, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

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 of Capital loss on transfer Rs. 40,60,000/- 73 of shares of PDK Shenaj Hotels Pvt. Ltd 3. Disallowance of all Expenses debited to Rs. 86,04,017/- 58 profit

SHARWAN KUMAR SETHI,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shripradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), if the capital gain is treated as a long term capital gain.” 3. Brief

ARUNIMA ADCON SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

long term capital gain was accepted by the Assessing Officer but the claim for short term capital gain was disallowed. The Assessing Officer reasoned in this regard as follows: - “4.5 In the instant case, except one condition i.e. utilizing own funds all other conditions are against the assessee. The assessee was a trader in the past and in order

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. RADHARANI ORNAMENTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

long term capital gain was accepted by the Assessing Officer but the claim for short term capital gain was disallowed. The Assessing Officer reasoned in this regard as follows: - “4.5 In the instant case, except one condition i.e. utilizing own funds all other conditions are against the assessee. The assessee was a trader in the past and in order

NINA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Long Term Capital Gain as short-term capital gain. We are of the opinion that the AO cannot reject the sale price of the shares as agreed upon between parties, unless there is evidence of payment over and above the agreed price. Page 31 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle

HERSH VARDHAN KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Long Term Capital Gain as short-term capital gain. We are of the opinion that the AO cannot reject the sale price of the shares as agreed upon between parties, unless there is evidence of payment over and above the agreed price. Page 31 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle

SANGITA KSHETRY,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE INT.TAX. 2(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assesses in ITA 1876/Del/2023, ITA

Bench: Sh. C.N. Prasad & Sh. Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2016-17

Long Term Capital Gain as short-term capital gain. We are of the opinion that the AO cannot reject the sale price of the shares as agreed upon between parties, unless there is evidence of payment over and above the agreed price. Page 31 of 37 ITA No.1876/Del/2023 AY2016-17 Sangita Kshetry &Oths Vs ACIT Circle

AMIT JINDAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 59(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16] Amit Jindal, Ito-59(3), 105, Defence Enclave, D-Block, Delhi-110092 Vs Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi -110002 Pan-Aflpj2122A Assessee Revenue

capital gain. Since assessee has received sale consideration of Rs.46,93,198/-, an amount of Rs.1,40,796/- (being 3% of Rs.46,93,198/-) is being added u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated on the addition of Rs.48

SHAILENDRA ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] Shailendra, Vs Ito, C/O-Vinod Kumar Goel, 282, Ward-2(3), Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Cavps9753D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2023

Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”). The basis of computing capital gain was that the assessee paid stamp duty on market value of Rs.49,75,000/-. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs.24,87,500/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, NEW DELHI

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) by the assessee wherein it is challenged by the assessee that assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act is time barred in terms of section 153B of the Act and ought to have held to be annulled.

Long Term Capital Gain on account of alleged unexplained expenditure towards commission expenses incurred to arrange LTCG. 12. That the Ld. CIT(A) and the and the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts by initiating the penalty proceeding u/s 271

MRS. NEETA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

long term capital gains to the short term capital gains (supra) is concerned, Mr. Jain takes us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion on the said former issue reading as under: “7.5 The admitted cost of old property is Rs.1,32,50,000/- (cost of entire property: Rs.1,25,00,000/- plus stamp duty Rs.7,50,000/-). Thus

MRS. NEETA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. CIT (APPEALS)-XXVI, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

long term capital gains to the short term capital gains (supra) is concerned, Mr. Jain takes us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion on the said former issue reading as under: “7.5 The admitted cost of old property is Rs.1,32,50,000/- (cost of entire property: Rs.1,25,00,000/- plus stamp duty Rs.7,50,000/-). Thus

MRS. NEETA GUPTA,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

long term capital gains to the short term capital gains (supra) is concerned, Mr. Jain takes us to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion on the said former issue reading as under: “7.5 The admitted cost of old property is Rs.1,32,50,000/- (cost of entire property: Rs.1,25,00,000/- plus stamp duty Rs.7,50,000/-). Thus

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Long term capital gain) ___________________ Rs. 28,17,485 ___________________ 3 That during the year under consideration assessee had earned Gain on sale of equity shares of M/s. Surabhi Chemicals and Investment Ltd. for Rs. 22,52,715/-. Initially 2500 No. of shares of Surabhi Chemicals and Investment Ltd. were purchased for Rs. 45000 from M/s. S.K. Khemka and later on these

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain surrendered, on 05.12.2017 under section 143(3) of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 7. The Ld. AO issued penalty notice dated 05.12.2017 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. 8. In response the assessee filed a detailed reply

SHYAM SUNDER KANSAL,U.P vs. WARD 2(3)(2), U.P

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

long term capital gain. During the assessment, the AO verified the claim of commission of Rs. 2,50,000/- and improvement expenditure of Rs. 50,000. The AO asked the assessee to produce documentary evidences regarding the claim made by the assessee. That the matter being old, the assessee could not produce the evidences and as such the AO estimated

ACIT, CIRCLE-69(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANJAY CHOUDHARY, DELHI

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1274/Del/2020, A.Y. 2013-14

long term capital gain and Ld. AO held they were not covered for the ‘purchase’ u/s 54F. The relevant findings of para no. 7 of the Ld. AO are reproduced :- “7. The above submissions were considered. The claims of the assessee regarding acquisition of the two plots of land and claim of construction on the two new pieces of agricultural