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

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

26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph. The necessary documents in connection with such bogus long-term capital gain which

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

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

26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph. The necessary documents in connection with such bogus long-term capital gain which

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

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

26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph. The necessary documents in connection with such bogus long-term capital gain which

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

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

26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph. The necessary documents in connection with such bogus long-term capital gain which

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

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

26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph. The necessary documents in connection with such bogus long-term capital gain which

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

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

26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph. The necessary documents in connection with such bogus long-term capital gain which

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

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

26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph. The necessary documents in connection with such bogus long-term capital gain which

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

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

26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies has already been discussed in the preceding paragraph. The necessary documents in connection with such bogus long-term capital gain which

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

26 opined (per headnote): "In order to attract liability to tax on capital gains under section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it is sufficient if in the relevant accounting year profits have arisen out of the sale of capital assets, that is to say, if the assesses has a right to receive the profits

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

26 opined (per headnote): "In order to attract liability to tax on capital gains under section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it is sufficient if in the relevant accounting year profits have arisen out of the sale of capital assets, that is to say, if the assesses has a right to receive the profits

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10. In view of the discussion made above and considering the facts and\ncircumstances of the case, the following facts become manifestly clear:-\ni)\nThat some unscrupulous operators in the capital market were\nrunning a scheme of providing entries of LTCG for a commission.\nii) The financial result of the Penny Stock used for the purpose\nclearly indicate that

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

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

10(36) of the Assessee in the earlier years and on the basis of the surrender made in the earlier years (which was factually incorrect) setting-aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that on the issue of unsecured loans as well as deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT

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

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

10(36) of the Assessee in the earlier years and on the basis of the surrender made in the earlier years (which was factually incorrect) setting-aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that on the issue of unsecured loans as well as deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT

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

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

10(36) of the Assessee in the earlier years and on the basis of the surrender made in the earlier years (which was factually incorrect) setting-aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that on the issue of unsecured loans as well as deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT

S.SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

26,00,000/- in the Capital Gain Account Scheme maintained with SBI on 12/09/2012 and has claimed the entire capital gains as exempt under section 54 of the Act. As the assessee couldn’t carry out the purchase/construction of new property within the stipulated time and that too, before the date of furnishing of the return of income

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

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

26 worth; that the appellant, Smt. Aarti Singal, Shri Aniket Singal and M/s Sanjay Singal HUF, had purchased 3,75,000 shares each, and they were having 10% shareholding of Maa Jagdambe as on March, 2013; that it was not an isolated case and that the appellant and his family members traded in the penny stock of Maa Jagdambe

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

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

26 worth; that the appellant, Smt. Aarti Singal, Shri Aniket Singal and M/s Sanjay Singal HUF, had purchased 3,75,000 shares each, and they were having 10% shareholding of Maa Jagdambe as on March, 2013; that it was not an isolated case and that the appellant and his family members traded in the penny stock of Maa Jagdambe

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 Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid view in CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. (1973) 87 ITR 407. Thus, it emerges that the expression "full value of consideration", appearing in section 48 of the Act does not have any reference to the fair market value but to the consideration referred to in the sale deeds as the sale