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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

10. The ld. CIT(Appeals) considering the submission of the assessee, material on record and case law cited by assessee dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee and held that Assessing Officer has rightly taxed the capital gain on entire sale consideration in the assessment year under appeal 2007-08. The findings of ld. CIT(Appeals) in para

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

10. The ld. CIT(Appeals) considering the submission of the assessee, material on record and case law cited by assessee dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee and held that Assessing Officer has rightly taxed the capital gain on entire sale consideration in the assessment year under appeal 2007-08. The findings of ld. CIT(Appeals) in para

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

Section 50 of the Act. 10. Ld. DR at this juncture drew our attention to the order of Ld. CIT(A) pointing out there from that the Ld. CIT(A) had found that identical issue had been dealt with by the ITAT in the case of Smt. Radha Devi Vs. The ITO in ITA No. 1095/Chd/2014 dt. 13/10/2017

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

Section 50 of the Act. 10. Ld. DR at this juncture drew our attention to the order of Ld. CIT(A) pointing out there from that the Ld. CIT(A) had found that identical issue had been dealt with by the ITAT in the case of Smt. Radha Devi Vs. The ITO in ITA No. 1095/Chd/2014 dt. 13/10/2017

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

20-05-2013 to 13-09-2013\nAmount received\nRs.1,22,14,309/-\nBroker through whom shares sold\nM/s Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services\nLtd. Banglore\nLong Term Capital Gains\nRs.1,04,06,769/-\n2.22 That primafacie it was found that the assessee indulged in booking\nbogus LTCG and claimed the above amount of Rs.1,04,06,769/- as\nexempt

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

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

20 mentioned that the seized records were discussed from time to time and also full enquiry was conducted. 5.5 Thereafter, our attention was drawn to the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act wherein the Ld. PCIT has raised the issues of Short Term Capital Gain, Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10

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

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

20 mentioned that the seized records were discussed from time to time and also full enquiry was conducted. 5.5 Thereafter, our attention was drawn to the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act wherein the Ld. PCIT has raised the issues of Short Term Capital Gain, Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10

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

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

20 mentioned that the seized records were discussed from time to time and also full enquiry was conducted. 5.5 Thereafter, our attention was drawn to the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act wherein the Ld. PCIT has raised the issues of Short Term Capital Gain, Long Term Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10

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

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

section 10 (38). Once the appellant was made aware of the result of investigation made by the SEBI which proved that trading of shares leading to LTCG was not genuine, the onus was on the appellant to prove that it has earned genuine LTCG as it is the appellant who is asserting a claim that it was engaged in genuine

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). Once the appellant was made aware of the result of investigation made by the SEBI which proved that trading of shares leading to LTCG was not genuine, the onus was on the appellant to prove that it has earned genuine LTCG as it is the appellant who is asserting a claim that it was engaged in genuine