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

10 (38) of the act and the same has not been offered for taxation for the year under consideration. Accordingly, he concluded that assessee has not disclosed long-term 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

KRISHNA DEVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

reassessment or re-computation as specified in sub- section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be a valid notice. 53 Krishan Devi Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in the first proviso or the second proviso shall apply to any return which

MAHESH KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68(6), DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

10(38) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made two other additions – Rs.15,40,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of deposit of cash/cheques which went unexplained and Rs.20,62,375/- being unexplained expenditure on purchase of property under Section 69 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has deleted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), DELHI, DELHI vs. ARTISTIC FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Ground no. 3 as raised by the assessee deserves to be allowed and the impugned addition cannot be sustained

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang(), Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Mahesh Kumar, Vs Ito, 6/305/1A, Doonger Ward-68(6), Mohalla, Delhi-110032. Delhi. Pan-Aoopk6335A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Respondent By Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.08.2025

10(38) of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made two other additions – Rs.15,40,000/- under Section 68 of the Act on account of deposit of cash/cheques which went unexplained and Rs.20,62,375/- being unexplained expenditure on purchase of property under Section 69 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has deleted

PROVIDENT INV. & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiprovident Inv & Industries P Ltd, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(2), 4Th Floor, Ito, A-49, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aabcj4816P (Appellant) (Respondent)

38-58 - PB -II CIT VS Dhariwal Sales - MP High Court - Page 59-60 - Paper Book -II Provident Inv & Industries Private Limited V ITO ITA No 1003/Del/2015 A Y 2008-09  Allahabad HC has held in CIT vs Drs Xray and Pathology Institute P Ltd-Pg 34-37 of Paper Book-ll the moment the event arresting Limitation is vacated

CHIRAG KIRPAL,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarchirag Kirpal, Vs. Acit, C/O. Anuj Bhatia, C-3, Bali International Taxation, Nagar, New Raja Garden, Gurgaon New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bwxpk8788D Assessee By : Shri. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

10. A Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas (P.) Ltd. (supra) relying upon office memorandum dated 20.02.2023 issued by CBDT, dismissed the petition assailing notice issued under Section 148 by JAO. It is apt to notice here that Calcutta High Court without testing contents of office memorandum vis-a-vis mandatory provisions dismissed the petition. The complete

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. REGENCY CREATIONS LTD

38 – Press Note 2 (1993 Series) and also the letter dated 31.03.2011 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The Tribunal noticed that Press Notes 2 and 5 which had been relied upon clearly stated that the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee for EHTPS and ESTPC was competent to grant approval for STPI units to claim 100 % benefits under

JAGDISH MALHOTRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), JHANDEWALAN

reassessment proceedings were vitiated and quashed.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "143(1)", "10(38)", "68", "142(1)", "143(2)", "10

DCIT, HISAR vs. TAYAL SONS PVT. LTD., HISAR

The Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3323/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Tayal Sons Private Vs Dcit Limited Income Tax Office, Sesctor14, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Ita No. 3467/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Dcit Vs Tayal Sons Private Limited Income Tax Office, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Sesctor14, Hisar, Haryana. Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ishitafarsiya, Adv, Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv& Ms. Sakshirustagi. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Two

10. A Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas (P.) Ltd. (supra) relying upon office memorandum dated 20.02.2023 issued by CBDT, dismissed the petition assailing notice issued under Section 148 by JAO. It is apt to notice here that Calcutta High Court without testing contents of office memorandum vis-a-vis mandatory provisions dismissed the petition. The complete

TAYAL SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HISAR vs. DCIT, HISAR

The Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3323/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Tayal Sons Private Vs Dcit Limited Income Tax Office, Sesctor14, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Ita No. 3467/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Dcit Vs Tayal Sons Private Limited Income Tax Office, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Sesctor14, Hisar, Haryana. Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ishitafarsiya, Adv, Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv& Ms. Sakshirustagi. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Two

10. A Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas (P.) Ltd. (supra) relying upon office memorandum dated 20.02.2023 issued by CBDT, dismissed the petition assailing notice issued under Section 148 by JAO. It is apt to notice here that Calcutta High Court without testing contents of office memorandum vis-a-vis mandatory provisions dismissed the petition. The complete

TAYAL SONS PRIVATE LIMITED,HISAR vs. DCIT, HISAR

The Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3323/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Tayal Sons Private Vs Dcit Limited Income Tax Office, Sesctor14, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Ita No. 3467/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Dcit Vs Tayal Sons Private Limited Income Tax Office, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Sesctor14, Hisar, Haryana. Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ishitafarsiya, Adv, Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv& Ms. Sakshirustagi. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Two

10. A Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas (P.) Ltd. (supra) relying upon office memorandum dated 20.02.2023 issued by CBDT, dismissed the petition assailing notice issued under Section 148 by JAO. It is apt to notice here that Calcutta High Court without testing contents of office memorandum vis-a-vis mandatory provisions dismissed the petition. The complete

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HISAR vs. M/S. TAYAL SONS PVT. LTD., HISAR

The Appeals of the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalita No. 3323/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Tayal Sons Private Vs Dcit Limited Income Tax Office, Sesctor14, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Ita No. 3467/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Dcit Vs Tayal Sons Private Limited Income Tax Office, 653A, Kath Mandi Road, Hisar, Sesctor14, Hisar, Haryana. Pan: Aabct6693E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ishitafarsiya, Adv, Ms. Soumya Singh, Adv& Ms. Sakshirustagi. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Captioned Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Two

10. A Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in Triton Overseas (P.) Ltd. (supra) relying upon office memorandum dated 20.02.2023 issued by CBDT, dismissed the petition assailing notice issued under Section 148 by JAO. It is apt to notice here that Calcutta High Court without testing contents of office memorandum vis-a-vis mandatory provisions dismissed the petition. The complete

PRATAP SINGH RATHI,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act is fully corroborated by the documentary evidences. The shares have been credited in the demat 13 account and transferred out of demat account at the time of sale. Both purchase and sale transactions are carried out through banking channel and by transfer of shares. The prima facie bona fides of existence of transaction executed

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

section 10(38) of the Act. Having claimed the exemption, the primary onus is on the assessee to prove its claim. Upon being confronted with solid evidence establishing the transaction of sale of shares of penny stock companies as sham transactions undertaken through a syndicate of entry providers mere filing of Demat account, bank account, contract notes, bills

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

section 10(38) of the Act. Having claimed the exemption, the primary onus is on the assessee to prove its claim. Upon being confronted with solid evidence establishing the transaction of sale of shares of penny stock companies as sham transactions undertaken through a syndicate of entry providers mere filing of Demat account, bank account, contract notes, bills

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

section 10(38) of the Act. Having claimed the exemption, the primary onus is on the assessee to prove its claim. Upon being confronted with solid evidence establishing the transaction of sale of shares of penny stock companies as sham transactions undertaken through a syndicate of entry providers mere filing of Demat account, bank account, contract notes, bills

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

section 10(38) of the Act. Having claimed the exemption, the primary onus is on the assessee to prove its claim. Upon being confronted with solid evidence establishing the transaction of sale of shares of penny stock companies as sham transactions undertaken through a syndicate of entry providers mere filing of Demat account, bank account, contract notes, bills

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

section 10(38) of the Act. Having claimed the exemption, the primary onus is on the assessee to prove its claim. Upon being confronted with solid evidence establishing the transaction of sale of shares of penny stock companies as sham transactions undertaken through a syndicate of entry providers mere filing of Demat account, bank account, contract notes, bills