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

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

8. On the other hand, the ld. DR has contended that as correctly held by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has shown the shares to have been allotted by way of preferential allotment off market; that the assessee earned Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.18,31,36,042/- from the sale of these shares

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

13. Mrs. Suri, firstly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, West v. George Henderson and Co. Ltd. (1967) 66 ITR 622 where section 12B of the 1922 Act fell for consideration. Section 12B of the 1922 Act as it was in force on April, 1, 1947 read as under:- "Section

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

8-Sep-07 10536245 150000 10686245 a/c No.55030123698 20-Oct-07 10686245 10000 10696245 a/c No.55030123698 7-Nov-07 10696245 100000 10796245 a/c No.55030123698 13-Nov-07 10796245 30000 10826245 a/c No.55030123698 13-Dec-07 10826245 120000 10706245 a/c No.55030123698 18-Dec-07 10706245 2900000 7806245 a/c No.55030123698 19-Dec-07 7806245 100000 7906245 ,,a/c No.55030123698

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

8-Sep-07 10536245 150000 10686245 a/c No.55030123698 20-Oct-07 10686245 10000 10696245 a/c No.55030123698 7-Nov-07 10696245 100000 10796245 a/c No.55030123698 13-Nov-07 10796245 30000 10826245 a/c No.55030123698 13-Dec-07 10826245 120000 10706245 a/c No.55030123698 18-Dec-07 10706245 2900000 7806245 a/c No.55030123698 19-Dec-07 7806245 100000 7906245 ,,a/c No.55030123698

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

8-Sep-07 10536245 150000 10686245 a/c No.55030123698 20-Oct-07 10686245 10000 10696245 a/c No.55030123698 7-Nov-07 10696245 100000 10796245 a/c No.55030123698 13-Nov-07 10796245 30000 10826245 a/c No.55030123698 13-Dec-07 10826245 120000 10706245 a/c No.55030123698 18-Dec-07 10706245 2900000 7806245 a/c No.55030123698 19-Dec-07 7806245 100000 7906245 ,,a/c No.55030123698

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

8. Per contra, the Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the CIT (A) leading to the conclusion that the Long-term capital gains earned by the Assessee on sale of shares was non genuine. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

8. Per contra, the Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the CIT (A) leading to the conclusion that the Long-term capital gains earned by the Assessee on sale of shares was non genuine. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

8. Per contra, the Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the CIT (A) leading to the conclusion that the Long-term capital gains earned by the Assessee on sale of shares was non genuine. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

8. Per contra, the Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the CIT (A) leading to the conclusion that the Long-term capital gains earned by the Assessee on sale of shares was non genuine. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

8. Per contra, the Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the CIT (A) leading to the conclusion that the Long-term capital gains earned by the Assessee on sale of shares was non genuine. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section\n\n142(1) )The assessee replies this notice to Ld. AO by stating that long\nterm capital gain claimed is real one and not liable to tax. Assessee\nsought complete details evidence and statement on basis of which\ndepartment was making such allegation. (Page 6 of paper book\nreply to notice dt. 14/12/2021). We observe that by notice

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

13. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The solitary issue before us is whether on entrance of a Joint Development Agreement, would it be construed that assessee has transferred his capital rights in the land which would result in any capital gain for assessment in assessment year 2008-09. 14. Before adverting

M/S LUDHIANA LEASING PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 241/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S Ludhiana Leasing Pvt.Ltd., बनाम The Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, #168, Sector 8, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl6365N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

13. Section 115JB(5) of the Act reads as under: "(5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee being a company, mentioned in this Section." Thus, by virtue of sub-Section (5) of Section 115JB, the application of other provisions of the Act are open, except if specifically barred

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

8. Section 45 of the 1961 Act deals with capital gains. By Finance Act, 1987, sub- section (5) was inserted in Section 45 and as per its clause (b), the enhanced compensation shall be chargeable under the head "Capital gains" of the previous year in which the amount is received by the assessee. This issue came up before Apex Court

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

8. Section 45 of the 1961 Act deals with capital gains. By Finance Act, 1987, sub- section (5) was inserted in Section 45 and as per its clause (b), the enhanced compensation shall be chargeable under the head "Capital gains" of the previous year in which the amount is received by the assessee. This issue came up before Apex Court

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

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

8. Section 45 of the 1961 Act deals with capital gains. By Finance Act, 1987, sub- section (5) was inserted in Section 45 and as per its clause (b), the enhanced compensation shall be chargeable under the head "Capital gains" of the previous year in which the amount is received by the assessee. This issue came up before Apex Court

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

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

8. Section 45 of the 1961 Act deals with capital gains. By Finance Act, 1987, sub- section (5) was inserted in Section 45 and as per its clause (b), the enhanced compensation shall be chargeable under the head "Capital gains" of the previous year in which the amount is received by the assessee. This issue came up before Apex Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

8. Section 45 of the 1961 Act deals with capital gains. By Finance Act, 1987, sub- section (5) was inserted in Section 45 and as per its clause (b), the enhanced compensation shall be chargeable under the head "Capital gains" of the previous year in which the amount is received by the assessee. This issue came up before Apex Court