SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

1,75,000/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and also issued statutory notices. The assessee in reply thereto submitted that return filed in original may be treated as filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee had sold the land for a consideration

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

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

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

iii) Shri Aniket Singhal Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises

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

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

iii) Shri Aniket Singhal Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises

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

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

iii) Shri Aniket Singhal Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises

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

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

iii) Shri Aniket Singhal Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises

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

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

iii) Shri Aniket Singhal Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises

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

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

iii) Shri Aniket Singhal Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises

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

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

iii) Shri Aniket Singhal Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises

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

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

iii) Shri Aniket Singhal Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises

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

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

iii) Shri Aniket Singhal Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF) Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2014-15 3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises

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)

gain. (iii) reference is made to an alleged re-cast of loan from petitioner to Hubtown Limited into an advance against property during year ended 31st March 2019 and the same is not relevant to Assessment Year 2017-2018. (f) Accordingly, it is irrefutable that no incriminating material relating to petitioner has been found during proceedings under Section