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

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

132(4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take

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

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

132(4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take

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

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

132(4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take

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

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

132(4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take

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

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

132(4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take

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

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

132(4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take

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

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

132(4) of the Act which have been used by the Revenue, while denying claim of the assessee for the long term capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take

M/S JAIN AMAR CLOTHING PVT. LTD.,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)

4). It was submitted that the Directors denial to provide any concrete facts about these transactions and said denial in the statement recorded on oath under section 132 constitute a direct incriminating statement which has actionable information found during the course of search and it has also become incriminating in nature as it indicate the non-genuine nature

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)

4 and it was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that it is a case of unabated assessment, and during the course of search on the assessee, no incriminating material/evidence has been found in respect of long term capital gains on shares which have been duly offered in the original return of income and the decision

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)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income

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)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income

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)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income

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)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return of income

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

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

132(4) of the Act during the search proceedings carried out in his case, on 21.02.2014; that though the findings of such search proceedings carried out in the case of the appellant / Shri R.K. Kedia and Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah might not have been directly applicable to the facts of the present case for the year under consideration, the findings

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

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

132(4) of the Act during the search proceedings carried out in his case, on 21.02.2014; that though the findings of such search proceedings carried out in the case of the appellant / Shri R.K. Kedia and Shri Shrish Chandrakant Shah might not have been directly applicable to the facts of the present case for the year under consideration, the findings

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

gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material was found during the course of search under section 132

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

gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material was found during the course of search under section 132

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

gain (LTCG) u/s 69C towards commission expenses Rs.42,46,375/- TOTAL Addition to the returned income 19. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of the initiation of proceedings under section 153A of the Act as no incriminating material was found during the course of search under section 132