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

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

Capital Gain, exemption u/s 10(36) of the Act, deduction u/s 57 of the Act as well as on unsecured loans but the Ld. PCIT did not give any thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the assessee but passed the impugned order in a summary manner, without any evidence on record and on the basis of the fact that

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain is not allowable; iv. Failure of the appellant to discharge his onus: The appellant has not been able to prove the unusual rise and fall of share prices to be natural and based on the market forces. It is evident that such share transactions were closed circuit transactions and clearly a structured one; v. Ignorance of the appellant

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The capital receipt unless specifically taxable u/s 45 under the head capital gain, in principle, is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of Revenue receipt or specifically brought within the ambit of income by way of specific

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The capital receipt unless specifically taxable u/s 45 under the head capital gain, in principle, is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of Revenue receipt or specifically brought within the ambit of income by way of specific

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The capital receipt unless specifically taxable u/s 45 under the head capital gain, in principle, is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of Revenue receipt or specifically brought within the ambit of income by way of specific

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The capital receipt unless specifically taxable u/s 45 under the head capital gain, in principle, is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of Revenue receipt or specifically brought within the ambit of income by way of specific

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The capital receipt unless specifically taxable u/s 45 under the head capital gain, in principle, is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of Revenue receipt or specifically brought within the ambit of income by way of specific

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The capital receipt unless specifically taxable u/s 45 under the head capital gain, in principle, is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of Revenue receipt or specifically brought within the ambit of income by way of specific

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

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

Section 57(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The capital receipt unless specifically taxable u/s 45 under the head capital gain, in principle, is outside the scope of income chargeable to tax and cannot be taxed as income unless it is in the nature of Revenue receipt or specifically brought within the ambit of income by way of specific

M/S GLAXOSMITHKLINE ASIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

195 of the Act, such a determination will form the basis for disallowance, if any, under section 40(a)(i) of the Act." c) Following the above circulars which have been followed by Assessing Officer, in AY 2011-12 in the case of the appellant, the disallowance of the appellant is computed as per the principle followed

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

capital and the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under: (a) Judgment dated 20th August, 2018 in Classic Binding Industries case omitted to take note of the definition 'initial assessment year' contained in Section 80-IC 19 itself and instead based its conclusion on the definition contained in Section 80-IB, which does not apply in these

DCIT, C-5, LUDHIANA vs. M/S HERO CYCLES LTD., LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross

gains is exempt from tax under section 10(38) of the Act is directed to be deleted on the basis of same reasoning and logic as adopted by the Honourable ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of the assessee company itself for the A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009- 10 and 2010-11 while deleting the identical addition in these years

RAJESH POPLI,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: For Imposition Of Penalty U/S271(L)(C).

195/-. The following issues have come before for imposition of penalty u/s271(l)(c). Profit on sales made outside books 4. Based on the statement given by the assessee and illustrations given by him in respect of some of the items regarding undervaluation of sale invoices, the average percentage of undervaluation of sales made by the assessee was worked

BHUP SINGH KOUNDAL,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD SHIMLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

195/- added on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account. b) Rs.52,79,000/- added on account of capital gains earned on sale of property. 6. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that assessee has not filed his return of income under Section