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 :-

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 and loss account 4. Disallowance of Donation paid u/s

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.

Short Term Capital Gain vide order dated 27/12/2019 passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Pursuant to the order passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, a penalty proceeding has been initiated u/s 271

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Short term capital gain on sale of shares; Long term capital gain on debt funds; and Long term capital gain from sale of equity shares, then while computing the taxable income, the whole of income would be computed in the total 23 | P a g e income and only the portion of Long term capital gain on sale of equity

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

u/s 68 of the Act to explain the transaction. The Investigation Wing has conducted detailed enquiries, made analysis of the seized / impounded documents and made analysis of beneficiaries. The report prepared contains details of complete modus operandi, 19 commission charged against accommodation entries, list of conduit companies, list of their bank accounts in the name of conduits. The said list

SAHIWAL INVESTMENT & TRADING CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblesahiwal Investment & Trading Vs Ito Co., Ward 22(2) 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, New Delhi. 10, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacs0017J Appellant Respondent

short term capital gain on sale of building in view of the provisions of Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s 271

SAURABH ARVIND DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, NOIDA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblesaurabh Arvind Desai Vs Acit 11, Rushil Bunglows, B/H Pride Circle-1 Hotel Noida Near Auda Fire Station, Bodakdev Ahmedabad Agmpd2427J (Respondent) (Appellant)

Short Term Capital Gain’ as against long term capital gain shown by the assessee. 4. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was also

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

short term and long term capital gain. Accordingly, I hold the capital gains of the assessee firm as income from business and accordingly assess the same at Rs.5,27,93,412/-. 7. Consequently, I am satisfied that the assessee has willfully furnished inaccurate particulars of its income within the meaning of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHRI HARI INVESTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

short term and long term capital gain. Accordingly, I hold the capital gains of the assessee firm as income from business and accordingly assess the same at Rs.5,27,93,412/-. 7. Consequently, I am satisfied that the assessee has willfully furnished inaccurate particulars of its income within the meaning of section 271 (1 )(c) of the Income

M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Short Term Capital gain of Rs.1,58,43,649/ is treated as taxable income of the assessee as per the provisions of the Act. I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars to the extent of Rs. 4,88,90,050/.Hence, penalty proceeding u/s 271

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL CO- OPERATION AGENCY,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

Short Term Capital Gain amounted to Rs. 14,029,045/- as per return. Ground. No.5 Based on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts. in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act. Ground 0.6 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on the unjustified ground that the top management of the Bhushan Steel Ltd (of which Appellant was Mg Director) was allegedly involved in planned and deliberate activities thereby resulting in alleged under reporting (because of alleged siphoning

GAURAV AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 60 (5 ), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishri Gaurav Aggarwal, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Ward 60 (5) Sheel Tara House, New Delhi. 4866/24,Ansari Road, Daryaganj New Delhi – 110 002. Pan : Agepa3001F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)© of the I. T. Act 1961 are initiated separately. I have examined the submission of the appellant. 1 have examined facts at hand and the legal issues. I have considered the appellant’s arguments. I find that the AO has correctly identified the unexplained income. Having identified the unexplained income the same needed

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

short-term capital gain as this is not a case of sale of underlying assets owned by the Company. The Assessee has not transferred depreciable assets and has never claimed depreciation as well. The Assessee was not the owner of such assets and was not even entitled to claim depreciation. 18. That, even otherwise, the holding period, the full value