HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

gain is derived would not disentitle them\nfrom the benefit of section 10(46).\n\n183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

gain is derived would not disentitle them\nfrom the benefit of section 10(46).\n\n183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298

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

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

46. The assessee further submitted that there was a specific request made to the AO during the assessment proceedings for extending the opportunity of cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied for alleging that the transaction of long-term capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus

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

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

46. The assessee further submitted that there was a specific request made to the AO during the assessment proceedings for extending the opportunity of cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied for alleging that the transaction of long-term capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus

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

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

46. The assessee further submitted that there was a specific request made to the AO during the assessment proceedings for extending the opportunity of cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied for alleging that the transaction of long-term capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus

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

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

46. The assessee further submitted that there was a specific request made to the AO during the assessment proceedings for extending the opportunity of cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied for alleging that the transaction of long-term capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus

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

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

46. The assessee further submitted that there was a specific request made to the AO during the assessment proceedings for extending the opportunity of cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied for alleging that the transaction of long-term capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus

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

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

46. The assessee further submitted that there was a specific request made to the AO during the assessment proceedings for extending the opportunity of cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied for alleging that the transaction of long-term capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus

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

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

46. The assessee further submitted that there was a specific request made to the AO during the assessment proceedings for extending the opportunity of cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied for alleging that the transaction of long-term capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus

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

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

46. The assessee further submitted that there was a specific request made to the AO during the assessment proceedings for extending the opportunity of cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied for alleging that the transaction of long-term capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus

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

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

46. The assessee further submitted that there was a specific request made to the AO during the assessment proceedings for extending the opportunity of cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied for alleging that the transaction of long-term capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus

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

section 45(5) of the Act which in contrast brings to tax capital gains on amount received. In the above view, it is his submission that the Assessing Officer was justified in bringing to tax entire amount of the respondent- assessee's share in Rs.20 crores referred to in the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 as maximum amount that could

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

section 45(5) of the Act which in contrast brings to tax capital gains on amount received. In the above view, it is his submission that the Assessing Officer was justified in bringing to tax entire amount of the respondent- assessee's share in Rs.20 crores referred to in the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 as maximum amount that could

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

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

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

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

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

10(37) of the Income-tax Act, and did not deal with section 56(2)(viii), section 145A/145B of the Act, or section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, according to the learned DR, those decisions have no bearing on the present dispute.It was submitted that Section 194LA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 mandates deduction