INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

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

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

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

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

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

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

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

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

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

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

10 1961 Act? Will it cover "interest"? These questions also bring in the concept of the year of taxability. 33. It is to answer the above questions that we have analysed the provisions of Sections 23, 23(1A), 23(2), 28 and 34 of the 1894 Act. As discussed hereinabove, Section 23(1A) provides for additional amount. It takes care

SURESH KUMAR,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-4, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

23(2) whereas Section 28 is available in respect of the entire compensation. It was held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India - (2001) 7 SCC 211, that "indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms it talks of compensation

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10(38) Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks : u/s.101 of Evidence Act,\n1972, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the LTCG is genuine. The\nassessee cannot on failure to establish a prima facie case, take\nadvantage of the weakness in the AO's case. The jump in the share price\nof a company of unknown credentials cannot

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

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

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans but the Ld. PCIT did not give any thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the assessee but passed the impugned order in a summary manner, without any evidence on record and on the basis of the fact that

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

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

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans but the Ld. PCIT did not give any thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the assessee but passed the impugned order in a summary manner, without any evidence on record and on the basis of the fact that

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

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

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans but the Ld. PCIT did not give any thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the assessee but passed the impugned order in a summary manner, without any evidence on record and on the basis of the fact that

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

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

10(38) are to be treated as genuine and they are not to be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 82. As discussed earlier, grounds of appeals in all the appeals are common. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we allow all the grounds of appeals and delete addition made by the Id.AO

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

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

10(38) are to be treated as genuine and they are not to be assessed as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 82. As discussed earlier, grounds of appeals in all the appeals are common. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we allow all the grounds of appeals and delete addition made by the Id.AO

NARENDER KAUR,KURUKSHETRA, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , KURUKSHETRA

10 deals with\ndeductions and sub-section (37) thereof deals with capital gains arising from transfer\nof agricultural land, it no where provides as to what is to be included under the head\n\"Capital gains\". The argument raised is not well founded.\n11. Learned counsel has relied on Circular No. 5 of 2010 by merely reading clause