AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

13, Block-B, Vishnu Garden\nJagadhari- 135003, Haryana\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-4,\nYamuna Nagar, Haryana\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: FMGPS1721D\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by :\nShri Ajay Jain, C.A (Virtual)\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by :\nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92 /Chd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15\nBaljeet

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

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income was thereafter processed under section 143(1) and thereafter, no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the statutory time period. 4.1 Subsequently, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises

SH. VIBHAV JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has held that the assessment under Section 153A of the Act is linked with the search and requisition under Sections 132 and 132A of the Act and thus, the object of Section 153A is to bring under tax the undisclosed income which is found during the course of search

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CL. 1, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

gainfully implied in their other activities also and therefore, payment of honorarium to these persons is not in accordance with law. To our mind, this cannot be a logic for denying the benefit to them. The intention of the Section is not as such. It is the assessee who has to manage its affairs and to decide what is necessary

KANDI FRIENDS EDUCATIONAL TRUST,ROPAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

gainfully implied in their other activities also and therefore, payment of honorarium to these persons is not in accordance with law. To our mind, this cannot be a logic for denying the benefit to them. The intention of the Section is not as such. It is the assessee who has to manage its affairs and to decide what is necessary

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

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

Section 132(4) of the Act, by Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah and Shri R.K. Kedia, were supported by seizure of a large number of incriminating documents, during the course of search proceedings carried out in their cases, including cash books reflecting flow of ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 6 unaccounted cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant

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 132(4) of the Act, by Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah and Shri R.K. Kedia, were supported by seizure of a large number of incriminating documents, during the course of search proceedings carried out in their cases, including cash books reflecting flow of ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 6 unaccounted cash from such beneficiaries, including the appellant

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

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

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

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

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

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