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

penny stock. Further ld AO found that assessee has not offered this sum in his return of his income for the relevant year but has claimed it as exempt u/s 10 (38) of the act. Therefore, he held that there is a failure on the part of the assessee discloses fully and truly all material facts. Therefore, the reasons were

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without any application of mind and examination of the so called material and information received from ITO Ward 11(3) New Delhi to establish any Page 54 of 59 nexus, even prima facie, with the such information

HIGHTECH CONSTRUCTION P.LTDR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act and to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without any application of mind and examination of the so called material and information received from ITO Ward 11(3) New Delhi to establish any Page 54 of 59 nexus, even prima facie, with the such information

ARCHIT GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

U/s 10(38) being STT paid on it. On the basis of an investigation report, the Ld. A.O has considered such long-term capital gain as part of accommodation entry and made the addition of both LTCG income of Rs. 2,89,87,795/- under section 68 of the Act. Re: Passing of the reassessment order: The assessee, for substantiating

ARCHIT GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

U/s 10(38) being STT paid on it. On the basis of an investigation report, the Ld. A.O has considered such long-term capital gain as part of accommodation entry and made the addition of both LTCG income of Rs. 2,89,87,795/- under section 68 of the Act. Re: Passing of the reassessment order: The assessee, for substantiating

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-62(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. GIRISH KUMAR GUPTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

penny stock company engaged in facilitating bogus LTCG and, therefore, reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated and notice

JYOTI GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

penny stock from the Investigation Wing, he disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,28,58,450/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised grounds of appeal as well as filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions, ld. CIT (A) sustained the additions

JYOTI GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 29, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

penny stock from the Investigation Wing, he disallowed the same u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,28,58,450/-. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and raised grounds of appeal as well as filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions, ld. CIT (A) sustained the additions

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

penny stocks has been disallowed and the appeals filed by the assessees have been dismissed:- i) Unit Kalra vs. ITO, ITA No.6717/Del/2017, order dated 08.01.2019; ii) Anip Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3809/Del/2018 & Anju Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3810/Del/2018, order dated 08.01.2019; iii) Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO, ITA No.5714/Del/2018, order dated 25.04.2019; iv) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (2019-TIOL-1296-ITAT

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

penny stocks has been disallowed and the appeals filed by the assessees have been dismissed:- i) Unit Kalra vs. ITO, ITA No.6717/Del/2017, order dated 08.01.2019; ii) Anip Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3809/Del/2018 & Anju Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3810/Del/2018, order dated 08.01.2019; iii) Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO, ITA No.5714/Del/2018, order dated 25.04.2019; iv) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (2019-TIOL-1296-ITAT

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

penny stocks has been disallowed and the appeals filed by the assessees have been dismissed:- i) Unit Kalra vs. ITO, ITA No.6717/Del/2017, order dated 08.01.2019; ii) Anip Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3809/Del/2018 & Anju Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3810/Del/2018, order dated 08.01.2019; iii) Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO, ITA No.5714/Del/2018, order dated 25.04.2019; iv) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (2019-TIOL-1296-ITAT

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

penny stocks has been disallowed and the appeals filed by the assessees have been dismissed:- i) Unit Kalra vs. ITO, ITA No.6717/Del/2017, order dated 08.01.2019; ii) Anip Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3809/Del/2018 & Anju Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3810/Del/2018, order dated 08.01.2019; iii) Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO, ITA No.5714/Del/2018, order dated 25.04.2019; iv) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (2019-TIOL-1296-ITAT

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

penny stocks has been disallowed and the appeals filed by the assessees have been dismissed:- i) Unit Kalra vs. ITO, ITA No.6717/Del/2017, order dated 08.01.2019; ii) Anip Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3809/Del/2018 & Anju Rastogi vs. ITO, ITA No.3810/Del/2018, order dated 08.01.2019; iii) Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO, ITA No.5714/Del/2018, order dated 25.04.2019; iv) Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (2019-TIOL-1296-ITAT

NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

penny stock by M/s Blueprint Securities Ltd. during the F.Y. 2013-14 for Rs. 22,01,760/- which is not correct. The Assessee has earned long term capital from sale of the Unno Industries Ltd. He further submitted that all these facts were available before the AO in the return of income filed by the assessee and has not recorded

R.D. VOHRA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing\nappeal and appeal of assessee are allowed

u/s 147 of\nthe Act 1961 in the case for AY 2014-15. in this case more than four\nyears have lapsed from the end of assessment year under consideration\nHence necessary sanction to issue notice us 148 is being obtained\nseparately from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is the provisions\nof section 151 of the Act.\"\n18.\nIn view

A. T. INVOFIN PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2013-14]

penny stock. (reference para 6.13 page 57 of Id. CIT(A) During the course of hearing the Hon'ble member raised a query regarding calculation of Long Term Capital Loss. This issue has also been raised by the assessee before he Ld. CIT(A) as per ground no 5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the same by directing

BRIJESH GUPTA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-31(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

penny stock namely shares of M/s DMC Education Ltd. and has not disclosed the income arising out of such transaction, reopened the assessment, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. I find rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,90,800/- u/s

GANESH GUPTA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 31(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

penny stock namely shares of M/s DMC Education Ltd. and has not disclosed the income arising out of such transaction, reopened the assessment, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. I find rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,90,800/- u/s

RC GUPTA (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 31(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5711/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 R. C. Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaghr9088D A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 7437/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Brijesh Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2833G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5474/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bithal Nath Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aaehb2834G A N D आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 5475/Del/2019. िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amit Gupta (Huf) Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates,Cas. Ward : 31 (4), Vs. L-7A(Lgf) South Extension,Part-Ii New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan No. Aahha3209G

penny stock namely shares of M/s DMC Education Ltd. and has not disclosed the income arising out of such transaction, reopened the assessment, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph. I find rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,90,800/- u/s