VIPIN JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 56(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

Section 68, which pertains to unexplained cash credits, is not substantiated by any credible evidence. Significantly, there is a glaring absence of any material that would indicate the assessee used an accommodation entry provider for the purpose of creating fictitious long-term capital gains

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 :-

Long Term Capital Gain and Circular no.04/2007 dated 15th June, 2007 with regard to Short Term Capital Gain, the ground of appeal is allowed as the Ld. Assessing Officer has erroneously treated the Gain from share/mutual funds as Business Income amounting to Rs.36,79,65,338/- hence the Ld. Assessing Officer is being directed to treat the Gain from share/mutual

SAT SAHIB SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Sat Sahib Securities Pvt. Vs Dcit Ltd. Pvt. Ltd., B-129, Anand Circle – 7 (1) Vihar, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi Pan No.Aabcs2456G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Long Term Capital gain from the sale of shares of Euro Asian Securities. Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the income shown from sale of shares of Euro Asian Securities Ltd. was, in fact, assessable as business Income of the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer the dealing in the shares of Euro Asian Securities Ltd. CIT (A) allowed

SACHIN KANODIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

section 10(38), were sham transactions. It was held that it was a case of bogus long-term capital gain obtained through brokers and that the assessee had used colourable device for avoidance of tax. The receipt of Rs.23,68

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

long term capital gain by manipulating the penny stock. 3.7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that in absence of books of accounts maintained by the AYs: 2016-17& 2017-18 appellant, section 68

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee areallowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-& Shri Girish Agrawal

long term capital gain by manipulating the penny stock. 3.7. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that in absence of books of accounts maintained by the AYs: 2016-17& 2017-18 appellant, section 68

SANGEETA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

long term capital gain and made addition under section 68 of the Act by treating long term capital gain as unaccounted

ADITYA SARAF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 Aditya Saraf Vs. Ito, Ward-17(4) B-45, Inder Puri, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 012 Pan Awwps1249K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Income Tax Act and Rs. 3,28,295/- made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act based on suspicion, conjectures and without any evidence is unjust illegal arbitrary, illusory , unwarranted and deserve to be deleted. 2. That the action of the CIT(A) in not accepting the Long term capital gain

CHANAN LAL DHINGRA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

long term capital gain is with respect to the deduction of cost of construction incurred by the assessee in 1983 of Rs. 2,50,000/- and 1983-1990 of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The assessee has only stated that as it is recorded in the statement of affairs as at 31st of March, 2013, the ld. Assessing Officer should grant

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI vs. ARIHANT KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 10(38), were sham transactions. It was held that it was a case of bogus long-term capital gain obtained through brokers and that the assessee had used colourable device for avoidance of tax. The receipt of Rs.23,68

SUMAN AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

long term capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 68,545/- under section

KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19 , NEW DELHI

long term capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 68,545/- under section

MAMTA AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

long term capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 68,545/- under section

RAJ GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

long term capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 68,545/- under section

GOPAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

long term capital gain by manipulating the price of share. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 68,545/- under section

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. DINESH GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

section 68 of the I T Act and no addition could be made in respect of long term capital gains

ITO, WARD- 28(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHIVANI GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Department

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R Kumar

section 68 of the I T Act and no addition could be made in respect of 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

68. 48. Even, the Act itself provides for rectification when there occur changes in the quantum of capital gains in sub- sections 7B, 10A, 11,15&16 of the section 155 in this regard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of Shah VrajlalMadhavji [1974] 95 ITR 614 (KER.) holding that the quantum of capital gain