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

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

capital gain without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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

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

capital gain without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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

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

capital gain without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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

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

capital gain without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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

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

capital gain without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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

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

capital gain without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

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

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

capital gain without bringing any material on record against the documents/findings discovered during the search proceedings by the Directorate of Investigation, Ahmadabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Chandigarh etc. 64. Generally, the principles of natural justice demands affording opportunity of cross-examination of the documentary evidence as well as the statements recorded of the parties if used against the assessee. But such principles

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Capital Gain for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 had been retracted as is evident from the Order of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019, placed at Paper Book pages 1 to 40. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not conducted necessary enquiries prior to the passing

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Capital Gain for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 had been retracted as is evident from the Order of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019, placed at Paper Book pages 1 to 40. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not conducted necessary enquiries prior to the passing

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Capital Gain for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 had been retracted as is evident from the Order of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019, placed at Paper Book pages 1 to 40. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not conducted necessary enquiries prior to the passing

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

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

natural justice has been adhered by sharing the copy of the report with the appellant during the appellant proceedings. Such order of the SEBI though has not been passed in the case of the appellant, however when considered in the totality; the said order alongwith the earlier adverse findings in the present case as discussed above vide para 6.2 onwards

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

natural justice has been adhered by sharing the copy of the report with the appellant during the appellant proceedings. Such order of the SEBI though has not been passed in the case of the appellant, however when considered in the totality; the said order alongwith the earlier adverse findings in the present case as discussed above vide para 6.2 onwards

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

nature referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and the requirement of registration of agreement under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be read into section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with Section 2(47)(ii), 2(47)(vi), and explanation below 2(47) and Section 269UA

SOHAN SINGH GARCHA,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptac.O. No. 39/Chd/2012 (In Ita No. 973/Chd/2012) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 Shri Sohan Lal Garcha, Vs. The Dcit, 901/2, Punjab Mata Natar, Circle Vi, बनाम Ludhiana Ludhiana

capital gain and passing the Assessment Order after the period of limitation, is pending before the ITAT Chandigarh, Bench-B bearing Appeal No.973 and Cross Objection No.39 of 2012. 4. That the CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana has erred in law, facts and circumstances of the case in not deleting the penalty or setting aside the penalty order by not considering

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain earned in the shares of the same company was considered as genuine by the learned AO at that time. As such addition made is without any basis unjustified and uncalled for. The same be deleted." 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition without appreciating the documentary evidences placed

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain earned in the shares of the same company was considered as genuine by the learned AO at that time. As such addition made is without any basis unjustified and uncalled for. The same be deleted." 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition without appreciating the documentary evidences placed

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain earned in the shares of the same company was considered as genuine by the learned AO at that time. As such addition made is without any basis unjustified and uncalled for. The same be deleted." 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition without appreciating the documentary evidences placed

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gain earned in the shares of the same company was considered as genuine by the learned AO at that time. As such addition made is without any basis unjustified and uncalled for. The same be deleted." 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition without appreciating the documentary evidences placed