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

13. In ground Nos.1, 2 & 3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land and in denying the deduction under section

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

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

capital gain through the sale of PIL shares. 22. Subsequently, one more search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 13

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

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

capital gain through the sale of PIL shares. 22. Subsequently, one more search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 13

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

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

capital gain through the sale of PIL shares. 22. Subsequently, one more search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 13

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

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

capital gain through the sale of PIL shares. 22. Subsequently, one more search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 13

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

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

capital gain through the sale of PIL shares. 22. Subsequently, one more search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 13

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

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

capital gain through the sale of PIL shares. 22. Subsequently, one more search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 13

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

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

capital gain through the sale of PIL shares. 22. Subsequently, one more search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 13

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

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

capital gain through the sale of PIL shares. 22. Subsequently, one more search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 13

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

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

capital gain through the sale of PIL shares. 22. Subsequently, one more search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act dated 13

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.

13. As stated earlier, the sole issue for consideration before us is whether the capital gain earned on the transfer by way of compulsory acquisition of the hotel/dhaba , to the extent owned by the assessee, is in the nature of Short Term Capital Gain as per section

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.

13. As stated earlier, the sole issue for consideration before us is whether the capital gain earned on the transfer by way of compulsory acquisition of the hotel/dhaba , to the extent owned by the assessee, is in the nature of Short Term Capital Gain as per section

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

13-09-2013\nAmount received\nRs.1,22,14,309/-\nBroker through whom shares sold\nM/s Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services\nLtd. Banglore\nLong Term Capital Gains\nRs.1,04,06,769/-\n2.22 That primafacie it was found that the assessee indulged in booking\nbogus LTCG and claimed the above amount of Rs.1,04,06,769/- as\nexempt

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

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

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

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

13 143(3) of the Act with the direction to make the assessment de novo. 2. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by invoking the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act without pointing out in which manner the inquiries

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

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

13 143(3) of the Act with the direction to make the assessment de novo. 2. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by invoking the explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act without pointing out in which manner the inquiries