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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34. With regard to long term capital gain earned by the assessee and his associates from the companies other than PIL, the assessee made similar argument that he did not know any of the persons who was allegedly controlling those companies or involved in activity of accommodation entry. Their statements were recorded behind his back. Thus, he requested for cross

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

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

34. With regard to long term capital gain earned by the assessee and his associates from the companies other than PIL, the assessee made similar argument that he did not know any of the persons who was allegedly controlling those companies or involved in activity of accommodation entry. Their statements were recorded behind his back. Thus, he requested for cross

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

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

34. With regard to long term capital gain earned by the assessee and his associates from the companies other than PIL, the assessee made similar argument that he did not know any of the persons who was allegedly controlling those companies or involved in activity of accommodation entry. Their statements were recorded behind his back. Thus, he requested for cross

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

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

34. With regard to long term capital gain earned by the assessee and his associates from the companies other than PIL, the assessee made similar argument that he did not know any of the persons who was allegedly controlling those companies or involved in activity of accommodation entry. Their statements were recorded behind his back. Thus, he requested for cross

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

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

34. With regard to long term capital gain earned by the assessee and his associates from the companies other than PIL, the assessee made similar argument that he did not know any of the persons who was allegedly controlling those companies or involved in activity of accommodation entry. Their statements were recorded behind his back. Thus, he requested for cross

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

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

34. With regard to long term capital gain earned by the assessee and his associates from the companies other than PIL, the assessee made similar argument that he did not know any of the persons who was allegedly controlling those companies or involved in activity of accommodation entry. Their statements were recorded behind his back. Thus, he requested for cross

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

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

34. With regard to long term capital gain earned by the assessee and his associates from the companies other than PIL, the assessee made similar argument that he did not know any of the persons who was allegedly controlling those companies or involved in activity of accommodation entry. Their statements were recorded behind his back. Thus, he requested for cross

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

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

34. With regard to long term capital gain earned by the assessee and his associates from the companies other than PIL, the assessee made similar argument that he did not know any of the persons who was allegedly controlling those companies or involved in activity of accommodation entry. Their statements were recorded behind his back. Thus, he requested for cross

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

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

34. With regard to long term capital gain earned by the assessee and his associates from the companies other than PIL, the assessee made similar argument that he did not know any of the persons who was allegedly controlling those companies or involved in activity of accommodation entry. Their statements were recorded behind his back. Thus, he requested for cross

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

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

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