AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

cash and signed the registration papers prepared by the buyer and his property dealer. All the statutory works relating to registration was done by the buyer who had deposited the stamp duty charges also. I am illiterate and do not understand the office working. Since I was concerned with my payment, I did care only for receipt of the actual

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

deposition recorded on 27.5.2015, deposed that\ncash is taken from the beneficiaries who wanted to book bogus Long\nTerm Capital Gain. It is stated that the cash

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant, to such accommodation entry providers. 4.7 On the basis of these facts, accommodation entries taken by the appellant and her family members for AY 2014-15 and earlier years have been held by the Assessing Officer as bogus credits taken into their bank accounts in the garb of bogus long term capital gain

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant, to such accommodation entry providers. 4.7 On the basis of these facts, accommodation entries taken by the appellant and her family members for AY 2014-15 and earlier years have been held by the Assessing Officer as bogus credits taken into their bank accounts in the garb of bogus long term capital gain

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant, to such accommodation entry providers. 4.7 On the basis of these facts, accommodation entries taken by the appellant and her family members for AY 2014-15 and earlier years have been held by the Assessing Officer as bogus credits taken into their bank accounts in the garb of bogus long term capital gain

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant, to such accommodation entry providers. 4.7 On the basis of these facts, accommodation entries taken by the appellant and her family members for AY 2014-15 and earlier years have been held by the Assessing Officer as bogus credits taken into their bank accounts in the garb of bogus long term capital gain

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant, to such accommodation entry providers. 4.7 On the basis of these facts, accommodation entries taken by the appellant and her family members for AY 2014-15 and earlier years have been held by the Assessing Officer as bogus credits taken into their bank accounts in the garb of bogus long term capital gain

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain on sale of an asset by\nraising queries and after considering submissions of assessee, PCIT\nwas not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 by\ntreating assessment order as erroneous.\n\nReliance was also placed on judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nCase in PCIT Vs. Clix Finance India (P) reported in (2024) 160\nTAxmann.com 357 (Delhi

BALWANT SINGH DHINDSA, ADV. SO KARTAR SINGH, #185 STREET NO. 11, PUNIA COLONY, SANGRUR, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. ITO WARD SANGRUR, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

cash deposit of Rs.28,07,500/- in following\nmanner :\nS.\nNo.\nAmount\nRemarks\n1.\n10,00,000/\nCash deposited out of sale of shop, capital gain

SH. PARDEEP KUMAR,AMBALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain of Rs. 7,60,000/-“. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Show Cause Notice issued dated 05.03.2021 u/s 263 of the Act wholly revolves only around the cash deposit

AMRIK SINGH SO UJJAGAR SINGH VILL KOOLHI KHURA, PO LEHAL NR PUNJAB MATA NAGAR LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), LUDHIANA JURISDICTION OFFICER WARD 3(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

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

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

capital gain arising out of said transaction. 6. It was submitted that out of Rs. 72,04,568/-, Rs. 71,20,568/- was transferred by the assessee in his another bank account maintained with Axis Bank and copy of the same is placed at page no. 6 of the paper book and thereafter, on 24.12.2010, the assessee withdrew cash

PREM SINGH,CHAMBA vs. ACIT CIRCLE PALAMPUR, PALAMPUR

In the result, the appeal for AY 2017-18 stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 946/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 947/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Prem Singh Dcit Circle, Palampur बनाम/ The Palace. Chamba Himachal Pradesh - 176061 Vs. Himachal Pradesh – 176310 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aampr-8876-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) (Virtual) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Assessee Is In Further Appeals Before Us For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Which Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. First, We Take Up Appeal For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2017. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Computation Of Capital

Capital Gains in the hands of the assessee. 20.2 During first appeal, the assessee stated that M/s Sahijpal & Associates were appointed by the assessee whereas M/s N.M. Thyagariraj, Advocates were appointed by the buyers to complete the legal formalities. The sale deed was drafted by M/s N.M. Thyagariraj in consultation with assessee’s advocate. Mere clerical error in claiming

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

capital gain on sale of an asset by raising queries and after considering submissions of assessee, PCIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 by treating the order as erroneous. Reliance were placed on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Clix Finance India (P) Ltd. reported in 2024 160 Taxmann.com 357(Delhi

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

cash from the beneficiaries, including the appellant, to such accommodation entry providers. 4.7 On the basis of these facts, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries taken by the appellant and her family members for AY 2016–17 and 2017–18 and earlier years were bogus credits introduced into their bank accounts in the garb of bogus long-term

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

cash from the beneficiaries, including the appellant, to such accommodation entry providers. 4.7 On the basis of these facts, the Assessing Officer held that the accommodation entries taken by the appellant and her family members for AY 2016–17 and 2017–18 and earlier years were bogus credits introduced into their bank accounts in the garb of bogus long-term

HARBHOL SINGH,SUNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SUNAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.788/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harbhol Singh Ito H. No. 863, Village – Sheron, Aayakar Bhawan, Income Tax बनाम/ Vs. Suman Road, Sunam Officer, Ward Sunam, Sangrur District : Sangrur Punjab - 148028 Punjab - 148028 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cssps-9948-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Deepinder Singh (Advocate) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Dt. 16/05/2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. In The Present Appeal Assessee Raised The Following Grounds:

cash deposits or the computation of capital gains. The AO observed that while the assessee submitted a certificate from the Tehsildar

SH. RAM LAL,ROPAR vs. PR. C.I.T. -1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

cash deposit so made by the assessee in his bank account and wherein the AO has duly verified and applied his mind and accepted the explanation and the documentation so submitted in support thereof, on the same facts, the Ld. PCIT cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. 5.4 In this regard, reliance was placed

M/S TJR PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CC-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

deposited, neither the AO, nor the CIT(A) on receipt of the documentary ITA 3 &144/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2014-15 59 evidence put any question to the assessee, or initiated any enquiry, either u/s 133(6) of the Act, or u/s 131 thereof. It stands made out that the assessee had earned the income of Rs.7 lacs from leasing