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

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

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

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) 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

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

29,63,696/- was transferred on 22/09/2014 from capital gain account to saving account No. 01030100004075 and subsequently Rs. 15,00,000/- transferred on 22/09/2014 in the bank account maintained by M/s Bali Ram Surjit Singh out of which Rs. 7,00,000/- was stated to be withdrawn for the purchase of property

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

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

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

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

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of Rs 2875041/- to be\nadded in income tax return u/s 69A of IT Act.\n\nFrom the above, it is clear that on the basis of material available on\nrecord, the AO has not made any addition after considering\nmaterial available on record, evidences submitted by the assessee,\ncontract notes, Demat A/c and thus AO has duly

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section

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

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section

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

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

29. The Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there is no specific provision in Section 2(24) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, incorporating within its ambit any “other income” referred to in Section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. It was contended that unless a particular receipt is expressly brought within the inclusive definition of “income” under Section