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

8. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in confirming an addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- made by AO as long term capital gain on sale of agriculture land measuring 139 kanal 13 marla (20% share) for a consideration

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

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

8 companies are those from where the assessee has shown long-term capital gain as discussed above. 28. There were certain other assessee’s/beneficiaries who have taken long-term capital gain on the sale of PIL and other companies as admitted by them in their respective assessment. One of group namely Shri Uday Hasmukhalal Vora and Dhiren Hasmukhalal Vora have

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

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

8 companies are those from where the assessee has shown long-term capital gain as discussed above. 28. There were certain other assessee’s/beneficiaries who have taken long-term capital gain on the sale of PIL and other companies as admitted by them in their respective assessment. One of group namely Shri Uday Hasmukhalal Vora and Dhiren Hasmukhalal Vora have

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

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

8 companies are those from where the assessee has shown long-term capital gain as discussed above. 28. There were certain other assessee’s/beneficiaries who have taken long-term capital gain on the sale of PIL and other companies as admitted by them in their respective assessment. One of group namely Shri Uday Hasmukhalal Vora and Dhiren Hasmukhalal Vora have

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

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

8 companies are those from where the assessee has shown long-term capital gain as discussed above. 28. There were certain other assessee’s/beneficiaries who have taken long-term capital gain on the sale of PIL and other companies as admitted by them in their respective assessment. One of group namely Shri Uday Hasmukhalal Vora and Dhiren Hasmukhalal Vora have

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

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

8 companies are those from where the assessee has shown long-term capital gain as discussed above. 28. There were certain other assessee’s/beneficiaries who have taken long-term capital gain on the sale of PIL and other companies as admitted by them in their respective assessment. One of group namely Shri Uday Hasmukhalal Vora and Dhiren Hasmukhalal Vora have

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

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

8 companies are those from where the assessee has shown long-term capital gain as discussed above. 28. There were certain other assessee’s/beneficiaries who have taken long-term capital gain on the sale of PIL and other companies as admitted by them in their respective assessment. One of group namely Shri Uday Hasmukhalal Vora and Dhiren Hasmukhalal Vora have

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

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

8 companies are those from where the assessee has shown long-term capital gain as discussed above. 28. There were certain other assessee’s/beneficiaries who have taken long-term capital gain on the sale of PIL and other companies as admitted by them in their respective assessment. One of group namely Shri Uday Hasmukhalal Vora and Dhiren Hasmukhalal Vora have

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

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

8 companies are those from where the assessee has shown long-term capital gain as discussed above. 28. There were certain other assessee’s/beneficiaries who have taken long-term capital gain on the sale of PIL and other companies as admitted by them in their respective assessment. One of group namely Shri Uday Hasmukhalal Vora and Dhiren Hasmukhalal Vora have

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

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

8 companies are those from where the assessee has shown long-term capital gain as discussed above. 28. There were certain other assessee’s/beneficiaries who have taken long-term capital gain on the sale of PIL and other companies as admitted by them in their respective assessment. One of group namely Shri Uday Hasmukhalal Vora and Dhiren Hasmukhalal Vora have

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.

section 148 was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed return shown NIL capital gain as under: Compensation received: Rs. 30,11,938/- Cost of construction Rs. 5,96,980/- Year of construction 1983-84 Indexed cost 596980 x 551/116 Rs. 28,35,655/- Capital Gain: Rs. 1,76,283/- Less: Funds invested in construction

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 148 was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed return shown NIL capital gain as under: Compensation received: Rs. 30,11,938/- Cost of construction Rs. 5,96,980/- Year of construction 1983-84 Indexed cost 596980 x 551/116 Rs. 28,35,655/- Capital Gain: Rs. 1,76,283/- Less: Funds invested in construction

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

8. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. On perusal of the show-cause notice, it is noted that the ld PCIT has stated that the assessee has sold the house property on 29/02/2011 and has claimed entire capital gains as exempt u/s 54 being money deposited in capital gain account scheme on 12/09/2012

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, 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

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

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

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

8 that each and everything was borne out from the computation of income and the details submitted therein. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. PCIT had merely set aside the original assessment without assigning any reason and by ignoring the voluminous details submitted before the AO and also subsequently before him. Thus, in nutshell, it was argued that

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

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

8 that each and everything was borne out from the computation of income and the details submitted therein. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. PCIT had merely set aside the original assessment without assigning any reason and by ignoring the voluminous details submitted before the AO and also subsequently before him. Thus, in nutshell, it was argued that

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

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

8 that each and everything was borne out from the computation of income and the details submitted therein. The Ld. AR argued that the Ld. PCIT had merely set aside the original assessment without assigning any reason and by ignoring the voluminous details submitted before the AO and also subsequently before him. Thus, in nutshell, it was argued that