SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

short term capital gain and bogus share capital / share premium/ unsecured loan. Such statements under Section 132(4) of the Act, by Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah and Shri R.K. Kedia, were supported by seizure of a large number of incriminating documents, during the course of search proceedings carried out in their cases, including cash books reflecting flow of ITA 655/CHD/2023

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

bogus long- term capital gain. Likewise, the allegation of the AO that Shri Jagdish Purohit was controlling the affairs of the company namely M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd was not correct as his name was not appearing in the list of Board of Directors of the company. The assessee further In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

bogus long- term capital gain. Likewise, the allegation of the AO that Shri Jagdish Purohit was controlling the affairs of the company namely M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd was not correct as his name was not appearing in the list of Board of Directors of the company. The assessee further In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others

SH. ANIKET SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

bogus long- term capital gain. Likewise, the allegation of the AO that Shri Jagdish Purohit was controlling the affairs of the company namely M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd was not correct as his name was not appearing in the list of Board of Directors of the company. The assessee further In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

bogus long- term capital gain. Likewise, the allegation of the AO that Shri Jagdish Purohit was controlling the affairs of the company namely M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd was not correct as his name was not appearing in the list of Board of Directors of the company. The assessee further In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

bogus long- term capital gain. Likewise, the allegation of the AO that Shri Jagdish Purohit was controlling the affairs of the company namely M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd was not correct as his name was not appearing in the list of Board of Directors of the company. The assessee further In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others

SH. SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

bogus long- term capital gain. Likewise, the allegation of the AO that Shri Jagdish Purohit was controlling the affairs of the company namely M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd was not correct as his name was not appearing in the list of Board of Directors of the company. The assessee further In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

bogus long- term capital gain. Likewise, the allegation of the AO that Shri Jagdish Purohit was controlling the affairs of the company namely M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd was not correct as his name was not appearing in the list of Board of Directors of the company. The assessee further In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

bogus long- term capital gain. Likewise, the allegation of the AO that Shri Jagdish Purohit was controlling the affairs of the company namely M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd was not correct as his name was not appearing in the list of Board of Directors of the company. The assessee further In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: S/Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Rajpal Yadav, Vice-

bogus long- term capital gain. Likewise, the allegation of the AO that Shri Jagdish Purohit was controlling the affairs of the company namely M/s Blue Circle Services Ltd was not correct as his name was not appearing in the list of Board of Directors of the company. The assessee further In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others

BALDEEP SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 199/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldeep Singh, The Acit, C/O Tej Mohan Singh, बनाम Circle 5(1), Advocate Chandigarh Vs. #527, Sector 10-D. Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Adyps3636F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.01.2025 Of Addl./Jcit(A)-1. Nagpur For The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

capital gains, bogus short term loss and bogus business loss through manipulation of stock prices as has been made out by the assessing officer and CIT(A) without appreciating the facts of the instant assessee. Rather, it is a case of declared STCG which stands declared in the ITR alongwith sale/ purchase

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 28.11.2018 passed for assessment year 2012-13. ITA-303/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2 2. The assessee has taken three grounds of appeal out of which Ground Nos. 1 and 3 are general in nature which do not call for recording of any specific finding. 3. In Ground No.2, assessee has pleaded that

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act on sheer presumptive basis. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon while adjudicating the appeal, has dismissed various grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act on sheer presumptive basis. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon while adjudicating the appeal, has dismissed various grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act on sheer presumptive basis. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon while adjudicating the appeal, has dismissed various grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act on sheer presumptive basis. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon while adjudicating the appeal, has dismissed various grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act on sheer presumptive basis. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon while adjudicating the appeal, has dismissed various grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act on sheer presumptive basis. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon while adjudicating the appeal, has dismissed various grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons