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

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)

10(38) of the Act. Similarly, the 6 Appellant has sold shares of "PSISL" between 18.11.2014 and 27.03.2015 which were purchased on 11.06.2012 and earned exempt "LTCG" of Rs. 18,04,76,013/-. The total long-term capital gains accruing to the Appellant were Rs. 36,05,27,391/- and the aggregate sale proceeds from the sale of shares

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)

10(38) of the Act. Similarly, the 6 Appellant has sold shares of "PSISL" between 18.11.2014 and 27.03.2015 which were purchased on 11.06.2012 and earned exempt "LTCG" of Rs. 18,04,76,013/-. The total long-term capital gains accruing to the Appellant were Rs. 36,05,27,391/- and the aggregate sale proceeds from the sale of shares

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)

10(38) of the Act. Similarly, the 6 Appellant has sold shares of "PSISL" between 18.11.2014 and 27.03.2015 which were purchased on 11.06.2012 and earned exempt "LTCG" of Rs. 18,04,76,013/-. The total long-term capital gains accruing to the Appellant were Rs. 36,05,27,391/- and the aggregate sale proceeds from the sale of shares

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)

10(38) of the Act. Similarly, the 6 Appellant has sold shares of "PSISL" between 18.11.2014 and 27.03.2015 which were purchased on 11.06.2012 and earned exempt "LTCG" of Rs. 18,04,76,013/-. The total long-term capital gains accruing to the Appellant were Rs. 36,05,27,391/- and the aggregate sale proceeds from the sale of shares

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)

10(38) of the Act. Similarly, the 6 Appellant has sold shares of "PSISL" between 18.11.2014 and 27.03.2015 which were purchased on 11.06.2012 and earned exempt "LTCG" of Rs. 18,04,76,013/-. The total long-term capital gains accruing to the Appellant were Rs. 36,05,27,391/- and the aggregate sale proceeds from the sale of shares

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

30,00,000/-. The buyer might have get the registration done at circle rate instead of actual payment made to undersigned. 3. The land in question is purely agriculture land and does not attract any capital gain as the agricultural land is not a capital assets (I am enclosing a copy of certificate issued by revenue authority in this regard

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

30,00,000/-. The buyer might have get the registration done at circle rate instead of actual payment made to undersigned. 3. The land in question is purely agriculture land and does not attract any capital gain as the agricultural land is not a capital assets (I am enclosing a copy of certificate issued by revenue authority in this regard