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

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

section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains earned on transfer of shares held in M/s Maa Jagdambe Trade Link Limited, as under: Name of No. of Purchase of shares Sale of shares Long term Share shares Date of Cost Price Date of Sale Price capital gain Sale purchase Maa 18.75.000 12.03.2013 Rs.37,50.000 Various

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

10 the Appellate Tribunal has observed that under Section 12-B(2) of the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Officer has to compute the capital gains after making certain deductions from the full value of the consideration for the sale and he therefore has a right to know the full value. The Appellate Tribunal added: "The assesses cannot shut

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

gain is derived would not disentitle them\nfrom the benefit of section 10(46).\n183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

gain is derived would not disentitle them\nfrom the benefit of section 10(46).\n183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

gain is derived would not disentitle them\nfrom the benefit of section 10(46).\n\n183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

gain is derived would not disentitle them\nfrom the benefit of section 10(46).\n\n183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298

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)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

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)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

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)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

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)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

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)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10 deals with deductions and sub-section (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head "Capital gains". The argument raised is not well founded. 11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause 46.1. The said

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10 deals with deductions and sub-section (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head "Capital gains". The argument raised is not well founded. 11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause 46.1. The said

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10 deals with deductions and sub-section (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head "Capital gains". The argument raised is not well founded. 11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause 46.1. The said

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10 deals with deductions and sub-section (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head "Capital gains". The argument raised is not well founded. 11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause 46.1. The said

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10 deals with deductions and sub-section (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head "Capital gains". The argument raised is not well founded. 11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause 46.1. The said

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10 deals with deductions and sub-section (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head "Capital gains". The argument raised is not well founded. 11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause 46.1. The said

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

10 deals with deductions and sub-section (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head "Capital gains". The argument raised is not well founded. 11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause 46.1. The said