SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

reassessment proceedings are correctly initiated, whether the shares held by the assessee in the joint demat account are short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset and what is the ‘cost of acquisition’ and ‘period of holding’ of those shares for computation of capital gain

SURESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

capital gain made through penny stock amounting to ₹ 5643085/– for F Y 2010 – 11 corresponding to AY 2011 – 12. Thus, the above sum was added to the income of the assessee. The returned income of the assessee of ₹ 7 422010/– was assessed at ₹ 1 3065094/–. 11. Aggrieved by the order of the learned assessing officer, assessee preferred an appeal before

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassess the case of Mr. Deepak Marda which was quashed by the Bombay High Court (refer pages 420-431 of the paperbook). Being so, the assessment of identical compensation as long-term capital gains

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain @ 20% and excess depreciation was claimed. 9. The assessee submitted a letter dated 20/04/2015 to treat the original return of income as return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. However, during the course of reassessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain @ 20% and excess depreciation was claimed. 9. The assessee submitted a letter dated 20/04/2015 to treat the original return of income as return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. However, during the course of reassessment

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

capital gain @ 20% and excess depreciation was claimed. 9. The assessee submitted a letter dated 20/04/2015 to treat the original return of income as return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 10. However, during the course of reassessment

UDAY KUMAR VAISH,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

capital gain taxed Rs.1 crore under the head of income from other sources which is a more favourable view for the revenue. In this situation, view taken by the AO in framing assessment order on all three issues cannot be held as unsustainable and not in accordance with law. In this situation, while the CIT himself is not sure about

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MS. PIYA SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Vs. Ms. Piya Singh, 15, Aurangzeb Acit, Circle-47(1), 426, Mayur Bhavan, New Delhi Road, New Delhi Pan : Apdps6582D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Rupesh Jain, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing 03.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 29/03/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxx, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2006-07, Raising Following Grounds: “I) Deleting The Assessing Officer To Allow The Long Term Capital Loss & Thereby Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,09,90,799/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain On Sale Of Apartment: Ii) Concluding The Fact That The Assessee Incurred Capital Loss First In Point Of Time & Capital Gains Were Arrived At Much Later Date Not Considering That It Was Not Only On 01.03.2006 I.E. On The Date Of Sale That The Assessee Came To Know That She Was Going To Earn Profit On Her Investment In The Apartment Rather It Was Well Within Her Knowledge That The Value Of Investment In The Property Was Appreciating & As She Invested In The Property Only For The Purpose Of Earning Profit, The Sale Of Shares Seven Months Before

gain transactions. The CIT(A) has also noted that the AO has not disputed about any of the transactions that have been duly completed' under the law nor that the consideration received was not the market price. It is further noted that the shares of Mackhinon & Mackenzie Co. Ltd. were Sold at the price quoted at the stock exchange whereas

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

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

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

Capital Gain. 31. The AO further observed that a search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Rajendra Jain Group, Sh. Sanjay Choudhary Group and Sh. Dharmchand Jain Group on 03.10.2013 wherein the investigation conducted had proved that the above mentioned persons were engaged in providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries and assessee was also

RAMOTAR SINGH HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 2, REWARI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

capital gain, also challenged the validity of such reassessment proceedings. However, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the validity of reassessment 4 proceedings