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

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

capital gain are a sham transaction. 39. There were various direct and circumstantial evidence available on record indicating that the prices of the shares of the impugned companies were rigged up in an organised manner by the network of the various entry-operators. All the transactions of purchase and sale of the shares of these companies on the stock exchange

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

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

capital gain are a sham transaction. 39. There were various direct and circumstantial evidence available on record indicating that the prices of the shares of the impugned companies were rigged up in an organised manner by the network of the various entry-operators. All the transactions of purchase and sale of the shares of these companies on the stock exchange

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

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

capital gain are a sham transaction. 39. There were various direct and circumstantial evidence available on record indicating that the prices of the shares of the impugned companies were rigged up in an organised manner by the network of the various entry-operators. All the transactions of purchase and sale of the shares of these companies on the stock exchange

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

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

capital gain are a sham transaction. 39. There were various direct and circumstantial evidence available on record indicating that the prices of the shares of the impugned companies were rigged up in an organised manner by the network of the various entry-operators. All the transactions of purchase and sale of the shares of these companies on the stock exchange

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

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

capital gain are a sham transaction. 39. There were various direct and circumstantial evidence available on record indicating that the prices of the shares of the impugned companies were rigged up in an organised manner by the network of the various entry-operators. All the transactions of purchase and sale of the shares of these companies on the stock exchange

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

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

capital gain are a sham transaction. 39. There were various direct and circumstantial evidence available on record indicating that the prices of the shares of the impugned companies were rigged up in an organised manner by the network of the various entry-operators. All the transactions of purchase and sale of the shares of these companies on the stock exchange

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

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

capital gain are a sham transaction. 39. There were various direct and circumstantial evidence available on record indicating that the prices of the shares of the impugned companies were rigged up in an organised manner by the network of the various entry-operators. All the transactions of purchase and sale of the shares of these companies on the stock exchange

PARAS AND SHUBHAM CHAUDHARY LEGAL HEIR OF KANHAIYA LAL,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1961 Act forms part of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act. In fact, what we have stated hereinabove is reinforced by the newly inserted clause (c) in Section 45(5) by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f.1.4.2004. This newly added clause envisages a situation where

SURESH KUMAR,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, W-4, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

1A) and solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1961 Act forms part of enhanced compensation under Section 45(5)(b) of the 1961 Act. In fact, what we have stated hereinabove is reinforced by the newly inserted clause (c) in Section 45(5) by the Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f.1.4.2004. This newly added clause envisages a situation where

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

section 45(1A) of the Act. Under this provision, where the assessee receives an amount from the insurer on account of damage or destruction to any capital asset as a result of natural calamities such as floods or fires, explosions, etc., the question of determining the capital gains

AJAY KUMAR,FATEHABAD, HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, FATEHABAD, FATEHABAD, HARYANA

gains arising from\ncompulsory acquisition of agricultural land and does not extend to interest\nreceived on delayed payment of compensation.\n8. The appellate authority / CIT(A) further concurred with the AO's\nanalysis that section 145B(1) read with section 56(2)(viii) provides a specific\nstatutory mandate to treat interest received on compensation or enhanced\ncompensation as taxable

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

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

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

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

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

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return

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

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

capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under section 10(37) cannot be presumed and must be reflected through proper computation, which was lacking in the present case. The Ld. CIT(A) also echoed the AO’s view that filing a revised return