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

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

4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record

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

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

4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record

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

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

4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record

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

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

4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record

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

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

4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record

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

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

4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record

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

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

4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record

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

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

4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

11,938/- 4.1 Taking note from the detail that one of the buildings acquired was a residential building on which Long Term Capital Gain (hereinafter referred to as “LTCG”) arises and further taking the cost of the property from the said detail, the AO computed the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the same as under: LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

11,938/- 4.1 Taking note from the detail that one of the buildings acquired was a residential building on which Long Term Capital Gain (hereinafter referred to as “LTCG”) arises and further taking the cost of the property from the said detail, the AO computed the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the same as under: LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN

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

4,84,06,250/- would not arise in assessment year 2007-08. 10. The ld. CIT(Appeals) considering the submission of the assessee, material on record and case law cited by assessee dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee and held that Assessing Officer has rightly taxed the capital gain on entire sale consideration in the assessment year under

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

4,84,06,250/- would not arise in assessment year 2007-08. 10. The ld. CIT(Appeals) considering the submission of the assessee, material on record and case law cited by assessee dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee and held that Assessing Officer has rightly taxed the capital gain on entire sale consideration in the assessment year under

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

4. As per the Ld. PCIT, on perusal of the assessment records including the questionnaire and noting sheet entry, it is revealed that the hearing in the case took place on multiple occasions and assessee also made submission during the course of assessment proceedings and copy of sale deed as well as bank account statement were furnished. However the entire

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

11 ITR-OL-206 (P&H)\nIn the above case Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in para 4, 5 & 6 have\nrecorded as under:\n\"4. I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the\nAssessing Officer, the arguments of the authorised represent- ative during the\nassessment as well as appellate proceedings

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

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

11. As submitted, the share transaction undertaken by the appellant was genuine and the exemption claimed under section 10(38) on gain arising from sale of listed shares was fully in conformity with the provisions of the Act. 12. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, the appellant filed return declaring income of Rs.1

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

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

11. As submitted, the share transaction undertaken by the appellant was genuine and the exemption claimed under section 10(38) on gain arising from sale of listed shares was fully in conformity with the provisions of the Act. 12. In the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2015-16, the appellant filed return declaring income of Rs.1

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

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

4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after verifying the claim under section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar

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

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

4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after verifying the claim under section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment of interest and also considering the history of the case that similar