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

14 CTR (P&H) 88 : (1980) 122 ITR 461 (P&H), for the proposition that the registered sale deed is not the last word for transfer and, if there is evidence available on record that the two sale deed were bogus, sham or manipulated the assessee could not be subjected to capital gains tax on the transfer of the plots

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

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

14. The statement of Shri Om Prakash Anandilal Khandewal (OPK), the director of PIL, was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act wherein he had admitted that PIL was a paper company, having no business and was used by Shri SCS for generating bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

14. The statement of Shri Om Prakash Anandilal Khandewal (OPK), the director of PIL, was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act wherein he had admitted that PIL was a paper company, having no business and was used by Shri SCS for generating bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

14. The statement of Shri Om Prakash Anandilal Khandewal (OPK), the director of PIL, was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act wherein he had admitted that PIL was a paper company, having no business and was used by Shri SCS for generating bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

14. The statement of Shri Om Prakash Anandilal Khandewal (OPK), the director of PIL, was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act wherein he had admitted that PIL was a paper company, having no business and was used by Shri SCS for generating bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

14. The statement of Shri Om Prakash Anandilal Khandewal (OPK), the director of PIL, was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act wherein he had admitted that PIL was a paper company, having no business and was used by Shri SCS for generating bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

14. The statement of Shri Om Prakash Anandilal Khandewal (OPK), the director of PIL, was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act wherein he had admitted that PIL was a paper company, having no business and was used by Shri SCS for generating bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

14. The statement of Shri Om Prakash Anandilal Khandewal (OPK), the director of PIL, was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act wherein he had admitted that PIL was a paper company, having no business and was used by Shri SCS for generating bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

14. The statement of Shri Om Prakash Anandilal Khandewal (OPK), the director of PIL, was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act wherein he had admitted that PIL was a paper company, having no business and was used by Shri SCS for generating bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

14. The statement of Shri Om Prakash Anandilal Khandewal (OPK), the director of PIL, was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act wherein he had admitted that PIL was a paper company, having no business and was used by Shri SCS for generating bogus long-term capital gain

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 50 of the Act or otherwise Long Term Capital Gain . The fact that the asset acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and for which the assessee was compensated to the extent of Rs. 12,52,444/- , was 1/6th share in a Hotel/ Dhaba,being thus a business asset of the assessee, has not been disputed by the assessee before

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 50 of the Act or otherwise Long Term Capital Gain . The fact that the asset acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and for which the assessee was compensated to the extent of Rs. 12,52,444/- , was 1/6th share in a Hotel/ Dhaba,being thus a business asset of the assessee, has not been disputed by the assessee before

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

14,309/-in aggregate thereby earning a Long Term Capital Gain\namounting to Rs.1,04,06,769/- on sale of shares which was claimed as\nExempt Income under Section

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 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains earned on transfer of shares held in M/s Maa Jagdambe Trade Link Limited, as under: Name of No. of Purchase of shares Sale of shares Long term Share shares Date of Cost Price Date of Sale Price capital gain Sale purchase Maa 18.75.000 12.03.2013 Rs.37,50.000 Various

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

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

section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains earned on transfer of shares held in M/s Maa Jagdambe Trade Link Limited, as under: Name of No. of Purchase of shares Sale of shares Long term Share shares Date of Cost Price Date of Sale Price capital gain Sale purchase Maa 18.75.000 12.03.2013 Rs.37,50.000 Various

SOHAN SINGH GARCHA,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptac.O. No. 39/Chd/2012 (In Ita No. 973/Chd/2012) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 Shri Sohan Lal Garcha, Vs. The Dcit, 901/2, Punjab Mata Natar, Circle Vi, बनाम Ludhiana Ludhiana

gains was concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee could not satisfactorily prove that the land sold by the assessee did not fall in the definition of capital asset under the provisions of section 2(14

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

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

capital gain is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after verifying the claim under section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment

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

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

capital gain is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after verifying the claim under section 57 of the Income Tax Act on account of payment