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)

capital gains on sale of shares. 9.8 It was further submitted that under identical set of facts and circumstances, in case of group cases, namely Shri Ashish Jain, Shri Akhil Jain and Shri Bipin Jain (ITA no. 352/CHD/2023 & others dated 23/01/2024), wherein similar additions were made by the AO by denial of claim of LTCG basis identical nature of material

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)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

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)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

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)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

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)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1). The same have been gone through. On\nperusal it is noticed that you haveclaimed Long Term Capital Gains on\nsale of shares pertaining to \"NCL Research andFinancial Services Ltd\" as\nexempt u/s.10(38) amounting to Rs.1,04,06,769/-.\n2. As per the information available with this office, survey operations u/s\n133A were conducted

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ii) an order modifying the order under section 92CA; or\n\n(iii) an order cancelling the order under section 92CA and directing\na fresh order under the said section.\n\nExplanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared\nthat an order passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing\nOfficer, as the case

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

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

1-5 are dismissed.” 4.1 Succinctly, thus, the ld. CIT(A) has held that there was no material to justify such abnormal increase in the share price of Maa Jagdambe, despite it having meager financials; that thus, such rise in share price in the case of Maa Jagdambe was not due to its performance, but it was due to manipulation

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

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

1-5 are dismissed.” 4.1 Succinctly, thus, the ld. CIT(A) has held that there was no material to justify such abnormal increase in the share price of Maa Jagdambe, despite it having meager financials; that thus, such rise in share price in the case of Maa Jagdambe was not due to its performance, but it was due to manipulation

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory

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

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

ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory

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

ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory

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

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

ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

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

ii) mismatch between interest/winnings reported in Form 26AS and the income shown under “Income from Other Sources” in the return. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued calling for details. 5. In response, the assessee submitted that he had received enhanced compensation of Rs.56,34,922/- from the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar (HUDA), Haryana, pursuant to compulsory