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.

Section 45 of the Act r.w.s 50 of the Act. The AO calculated depreciation on written down value of the Dhaba / Hotel building as on 01/04/2007 i.e; the beginning of the year and reducing the same from the compensation received, calculated STCG earned by the assessee at Rs. 11,12,482/- as below. SHORT 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

12 as under: 7. Mr.Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue urged that in terms of section 45(1) of the Act that transfer of capital asset would attract the capital gains

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

12 as under: 7. Mr.Pinto, learned counsel for the Revenue urged that in terms of section 45(1) of the Act that transfer of capital asset would attract the capital gains

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12

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

Section 12-B of the Income Tax Act as it was in force on April 1, 1947 provided as follows: "12-B. (1) Capital Gains

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

section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid.” 10. Therefore, any action on part of the Assessing officer to verify such utilization needs

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Capital Gain\namounting to Rs.1,04,06,769/- on sale of shares which was claimed as\nExempt Income under Section 10(38)of the Act.\n2.8 That after examining the information and written submissions\nfurnished from time to time, taking into consideration the sworn\nstatements, the assessment is completed as under:-\nIncome as returned by the Assessee\nUnexplained credit

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

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

12,33,250 after, inter-alia, claiming exemption of Rs.l8,31,36,042 under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains

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

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

12,33,250 after, inter-alia, claiming exemption of Rs.l8,31,36,042 under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains

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

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

Capital Gain’ for which, the exemption u/s 10(36) had been claimed as well as the issue of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on both the issues mentioned in the show cause notice