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

section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961. We also place reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) (177 ITR 198)(SC) wherein the apex court held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that there was neither an "exchange" nor a "relinquishment" and no capital gains arose from the transaction. An "exchange" involves the transfer

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 148 was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed return shown NIL capital gain as under: Compensation received: Rs. 30,11,938/- Cost of construction Rs. 5,96,980/- Year of construction 1983-84 Indexed cost 596980 x 551/116 Rs. 28,35,655/- Capital Gain: Rs. 1,76,283/- Less: Funds invested in construction

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 148 was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed return shown NIL capital gain as under: Compensation received: Rs. 30,11,938/- Cost of construction Rs. 5,96,980/- Year of construction 1983-84 Indexed cost 596980 x 551/116 Rs. 28,35,655/- Capital Gain: Rs. 1,76,283/- Less: Funds invested in construction

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

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

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 to extend the benefit to the parties. The statement of Shri OPK was also confirmed by Shri SCS. 15

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

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

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 to extend the benefit to the parties. The statement of Shri OPK was also confirmed by Shri SCS. 15

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

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

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 to extend the benefit to the parties. The statement of Shri OPK was also confirmed by Shri SCS. 15

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

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

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 to extend the benefit to the parties. The statement of Shri OPK was also confirmed by Shri SCS. 15

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

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

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 to extend the benefit to the parties. The statement of Shri OPK was also confirmed by Shri SCS. 15

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

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

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 to extend the benefit to the parties. The statement of Shri OPK was also confirmed by Shri SCS. 15

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

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

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 to extend the benefit to the parties. The statement of Shri OPK was also confirmed by Shri SCS. 15

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

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

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 to extend the benefit to the parties. The statement of Shri OPK was also confirmed by Shri SCS. 15

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

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

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 to extend the benefit to the parties. The statement of Shri OPK was also confirmed by Shri SCS. 15

S.SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

Section 54, there are time limits wherein the assessee is required to purchase a new residential property within one year before or within two years after the date of transfer of the original residential house property or construct a new residential property within three years from the date of transfer of the original residential house property. The ld PCIT observed

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

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

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

15 justify the ‘unsecured loans’. The Ld. AR submitted that in response, again a detailed reply was given wherein it was mentioned to the Assessing Officer that the offer was made for surrender of the capital gain for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 had been retracted. Also the specific information called for by the AO was also provided. Our attention

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

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

15 justify the ‘unsecured loans’. The Ld. AR submitted that in response, again a detailed reply was given wherein it was mentioned to the Assessing Officer that the offer was made for surrender of the capital gain for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 had been retracted. Also the specific information called for by the AO was also provided. Our attention

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

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

15 justify the ‘unsecured loans’. The Ld. AR submitted that in response, again a detailed reply was given wherein it was mentioned to the Assessing Officer that the offer was made for surrender of the capital gain for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 had been retracted. Also the specific information called for by the AO was also provided. Our attention