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 :-

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 funds as Capital Gain instead of Business Income.” 17. At the time of hearing

JAGAT PAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

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

68,776/- as Profit from Business & Profession. The Assessing Officer framed the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of income tax Act (‘Act’ for short), 1961 on 22.03.2013the short term capital gain of Rs 5868776/- has been taxed @ flat 30%. The Assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as there were certain mistakes in the assessment order. The mistakes

JAGATPAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

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

68,776/- as Profit from Business & Profession. The Assessing Officer framed the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of income tax Act (‘Act’ for short), 1961 on 22.03.2013the short term capital gain of Rs 5868776/- has been taxed @ flat 30%. The Assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as there were certain mistakes in the assessment order. The mistakes

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)

short-term or, as the case may be long-term capital gain, depending upon the period of the holding. A finding of fact has been arrived at by the Tribunal as regards the existence of two distinct types of transactions namely, those by way of investment on one hand and those for the purposes of business on the other hand

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)

capital gain of almost equal amount. The AO observed that short-term gain was not genuine inasmuch as the assessee had purchased 45,000 shares of M/s Ankur International Ltd. at varying rates from Rs. 2.06 to Rs. 3.1 per share and sold them within a short span of six- seven months at the rate varying from Rs. 47.75 paise

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

section 68. The Ld. CIT(A) decided against the assessee who brought the matter before the Tribunal. The Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal held that when the assessee sold shares, working of CSL was not above board and it was only providing accommodation entry in the form of long term capital gain and short

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund where— (a) the transaction of sale of such equity share or unit is entered into on or after the date on which Chapter VII of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 comes into force3; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities

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

short-term capital loss by various beneficiaries. Based upon outcome of such investigation and analysis of the data, the system directorate has uploaded details of such information in respect of individual assesses who have made transactions in such penny stocks. 2. The investigation carried out by the Department has proved that assessee was hatched by various players to obtain/provide accommodation

SANJAY KAUL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

68 of the Act, because addition has not been made for unexplained credit on sale of the shares during the year but in respect of the claim of bogus short capital loss. In the case of the assessee, correct action would be disallowance of claim of the short capital loss of the assessee. However, in our opinion, mentioning wrong section

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,705/–. Therefore, there was a mismatch in the exempt long-term capital gain shown by the assessee and information received from the DDIT , coupled with the fact that in the schedule CG assessee has disclosed nil income, the learned assessing officer clearly applied his mind to this and formed a reason to believe that short- term capital gain income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,705/–. Therefore, there was a mismatch in the exempt long-term capital gain shown by the assessee and information received from the DDIT , coupled with the fact that in the schedule CG assessee has disclosed nil income, the learned assessing officer clearly applied his mind to this and formed a reason to believe that short- term capital gain income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,705/–. Therefore, there was a mismatch in the exempt long-term capital gain shown by the assessee and information received from the DDIT , coupled with the fact that in the schedule CG assessee has disclosed nil income, the learned assessing officer clearly applied his mind to this and formed a reason to believe that short- term capital gain income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,705/–. Therefore, there was a mismatch in the exempt long-term capital gain shown by the assessee and information received from the DDIT , coupled with the fact that in the schedule CG assessee has disclosed nil income, the learned assessing officer clearly applied his mind to this and formed a reason to believe that short- term capital gain income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,705/–. Therefore, there was a mismatch in the exempt long-term capital gain shown by the assessee and information received from the DDIT , coupled with the fact that in the schedule CG assessee has disclosed nil income, the learned assessing officer clearly applied his mind to this and formed a reason to believe that short- term capital gain income

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

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

68,705/–. Therefore, there was a mismatch in the exempt long-term capital gain shown by the assessee and information received from the DDIT , coupled with the fact that in the schedule CG assessee has disclosed nil income, the learned assessing officer clearly applied his mind to this and formed a reason to believe that short- term capital gain income

M/S STYLISH CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishistylish Construction Pvt. Ltd, Dcit, 1027, Top Floor, Ward No. 8, Circle-9(1), Vs. Mehra Chowk, Mehrauli New Delhi Pan: Aaics4664H (Appellant) (Respondent)

short-term capital loss of Rs 48890050/-. Explanation to section 73 does not apply to following class of companies (i) a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads 'Interest on securities', 'Income from house property', 'Capital gains' and 'Income from other sources'. (ii) a company, the principal business of which

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

sections, it is quite evident that the Act does not prescribe any provision, which specifies that the period of holding should be decisive factor for determining whether the asset in a capital asset or stock in trade. It is also pertinent to note that the Act only prescribed that if shares are held in a company for not more than

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION CONSULTING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection of

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble : & Acit Circle 10(1), Vs. M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacd 3264 C C.O. 224/Del/2010 [In Ita No. 2321/Del/2010 (A.Y: 2006-07 ) & C.O. 217/Del/2012 M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Circle 10(1), B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi.

68,10,283/-. Period of holding varies from 3 days to three months, therefore, period of holding was not such which can said to be for earning dividend for alleged long term capital gains the assessee traded on 43 times in 10 scripts with turnover of Rs. 37,63,441/-. These shares were traded frequently with a motive to earn

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DIMENSION CONSULTING PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the cross objection of

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble : & Acit Circle 10(1), Vs. M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacd 3264 C C.O. 224/Del/2010 [In Ita No. 2321/Del/2010 (A.Y: 2006-07 ) & C.O. 217/Del/2012 M/S Dimension Consulting Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit Circle 10(1), B-11/8127, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi.

68,10,283/-. Period of holding varies from 3 days to three months, therefore, period of holding was not such which can said to be for earning dividend for alleged long term capital gains the assessee traded on 43 times in 10 scripts with turnover of Rs. 37,63,441/-. These shares were traded frequently with a motive to earn