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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act wherein the AO referring to the assessment proceedings in the case of the wife of the assessee Smt. Baldev Kaur wherein she had stated in her affidavit that the deposit in her bank account pertained to her husband, Shri Ajmer Singh who has sold his agriculture land as per the registered sale deed

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act wherein the AO referring to the assessment proceedings in the case of the wife of the assessee Smt. Baldev Kaur wherein she had stated in her affidavit that the deposit in her bank account pertained to her husband, Shri Ajmer Singh who has sold his agriculture land as per the registered sale deed

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act wherein the AO referring to the assessment proceedings in the case of the wife of the assessee Smt. Baldev Kaur wherein she had stated in her affidavit that the deposit in her bank account pertained to her husband, Shri Ajmer Singh who has sold his agriculture land as per the registered sale deed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. SUNIL KUMAR SOOD, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

capital gain tax during the year under consideration. DECISION 5.2.3 I have considered the reasoning given by the AO in assessment order, submissions & documents submitted by the appellant, facts of the case and legal position. Brief Facts : (i) The brief facts that the appellant has bought agricultural land of 37 bigha in village Kalyanpur, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh for a consideration

BIMLA DEVI,JAGADHRI vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

capital gains’ observing inter alia that “we with utmost respect are not in agreement with the view taken by Gujarat High Court” in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai case (supra). It is humbly submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) in the case of UOI v. Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) was not brought to the notice

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

capital gains’ observing inter alia that “we with utmost respect are not in agreement with the view taken by Gujarat High Court” in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai case (supra). It is humbly submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) in the case of UOI v. Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) was not brought to the notice

INDER KAUR,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

capital gains’ observing inter alia that “we with utmost respect are not in agreement with the view taken by Gujarat High Court” in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai case (supra). It is humbly submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) in the case of UOI v. Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) was not brought to the notice

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

capital gains’ observing inter alia that “we with utmost respect are not in agreement with the view taken by Gujarat High Court” in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai case (supra). It is humbly submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) in the case of UOI v. Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) was not brought to the notice

SH. RAM LAL,FATEHABAD vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

capital gains’ observing inter alia that “we with utmost respect are not in agreement with the view taken by Gujarat High Court” in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai case (supra). It is humbly submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) in the case of UOI v. Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) was not brought to the notice

PARAMJIT SINGH,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

capital gains’ observing inter alia that “we with utmost respect are not in agreement with the view taken by Gujarat High Court” in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai case (supra). It is humbly submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) in the case of UOI v. Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) was not brought to the notice

SH. GURDEEP SINGH MAHAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

capital gains’ observing inter alia that “we with utmost respect are not in agreement with the view taken by Gujarat High Court” in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai case (supra). It is humbly submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) in the case of UOI v. Hari Singh & Ors. (supra) was not brought to the notice