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

long term capital gain on sale of the property being the plots of land and building for which the sale was cancelled by an order dated 05/06/2015 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 35. As discussed above, the assessee filed a revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings initiated by the AO u/s

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

long term capital gain on sale of the property being the plots of land and building for which the sale was cancelled by an order dated 05/06/2015 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 35. As discussed above, the assessee filed a revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings initiated by the AO u/s

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

long term capital gain on sale of the property being the plots of land and building for which the sale was cancelled by an order dated 05/06/2015 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. 35. As discussed above, the assessee filed a revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings initiated by the AO u/s

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:

reassessment 4 proceedings and also sustained the computation of long-term capital gain determined by the AO. The ld.CIT(A) also rejected the claim of deduction u/s 54F/54B on the ground that the assessee did not make claim for the deduction in its return of income and also the assessee failed to furnish the bills and vouchers for claiming

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

long-term capital gain on sale of the shares but has not offered same for taxation but has claimed exemption u/s 10 (38) of the act. Therefore there is a clear-cut application of mind on the information (material) received by the assessing officer having direct nexus with the belief of the escapement of income. Now the assessee has challenged

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 147 of the income tax act. ii. If, the 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

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 147 of the income tax act. ii. If, the 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

u/s 147 of the income tax act. ii. If, the 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

u/s 147 of the income tax act. ii. If, the 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

u/s 147 of the income tax act. ii. If, the 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

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 147 of the income tax act. ii. If, the 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

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s. 292C of the Act relied on by the ld.DR are available against the person in whose possession the books of account other documents etc., were found. The presumption is not available against the third party and transactions are through Demat account. The assessee filed all the documents and these purchases were made by the assessee through account payee cheque

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s. 292C of the Act relied on by the ld.DR are available against the person in whose possession the books of account other documents etc., were found. The presumption is not available against the third party and transactions are through Demat account. The assessee filed all the documents and these purchases were made by the assessee through account payee cheque

RAMDEV MUNDHRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 55(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

long-term capital gain u/s 69 of the IT Act as unexplained expenditure. 6. Before CIT(A), apart from challenging the addition on merit, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and sustained the addition on merit

GOPAL CHAND MUNDHRA AND SONS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-55(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

long-term capital gain u/s 69 of the IT Act as unexplained expenditure. 6. Before CIT(A), apart from challenging the addition on merit, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and sustained the addition on merit

SHRIYA DEVI MUNDHRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 55(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

long-term capital gain u/s 69 of the IT Act as unexplained expenditure. 6. Before CIT(A), apart from challenging the addition on merit, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and sustained the addition on merit

GOPAL CHAND MUNDHRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-55(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

long-term capital gain u/s 69 of the IT Act as unexplained expenditure. 6. Before CIT(A), apart from challenging the addition on merit, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and sustained the addition on merit

DAMYANTI MUNDHRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-55(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

long-term capital gain u/s 69 of the IT Act as unexplained expenditure. 6. Before CIT(A), apart from challenging the addition on merit, the assessee challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings and sustained the addition on merit

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

u/s 147, we find that the assessee case was initially picked up for scrutiny under limited scrutiny under CASS to examine whether capital gain/loss is genuine and has been correctly shown in the return of income. During the original assessment proceedings, the AO had examined the issue of sale of shares and capital gains arising therefrom in detail