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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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)

207 of the PB) (vii) Copy of DEMAT statement (pages 208-213 of the PB) 4.11 It was also submitted that the said investment was made for deriving long-term capital appreciation based on the perception that the company had huge expansion plans and the share price by being low it seemed a low risk investment in a company with

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)

207 of the PB) (vii) Copy of DEMAT statement (pages 208-213 of the PB) 4.11 It was also submitted that the said investment was made for deriving long-term capital appreciation based on the perception that the company had huge expansion plans and the share price by being low it seemed a low risk investment in a company with

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)

207 of the PB) (vii) Copy of DEMAT statement (pages 208-213 of the PB) 4.11 It was also submitted that the said investment was made for deriving long-term capital appreciation based on the perception that the company had huge expansion plans and the share price by being low it seemed a low risk investment in a company with

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)

207 of the PB) (vii) Copy of DEMAT statement (pages 208-213 of the PB) 4.11 It was also submitted that the said investment was made for deriving long-term capital appreciation based on the perception that the company had huge expansion plans and the share price by being low it seemed a low risk investment in a company with

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)

207 of the PB) (vii) Copy of DEMAT statement (pages 208-213 of the PB) 4.11 It was also submitted that the said investment was made for deriving long-term capital appreciation based on the perception that the company had huge expansion plans and the share price by being low it seemed a low risk investment in a company with

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA DHILLON, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

section 48 of the Income Tax Act by restricting the capital gain only to the amount of sale consideration received in cash pursuant to execution of the sale deeds dated 02.03.2007 and 25.04.2007 where as full value of consideration also included the monetary value of each flat proportionate to the area of each plot registered? 3. Brief facts

ITO, MOHALI vs. SH. DALHIT SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

capital gains under the Income Tax Act 1961. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 2(47)(vi) of the Income Tax Act were not applicable in absence of registered conveyance deed disregarding the decision of the Supreme Court in Podar

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. MRS. SUNITA, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

section 48 of the Income Tax Act by restricting the capital gain only to the amount of sale consideration received in cash pursuant to execution of the sale deeds dated 02.03.2007 and 25.04.2007 where as full value of consideration also included the monetary value of each flat proportionate to the area of each plot registered? 3. Brief facts

PARVEEN KUMAR,229,VILLAGE MANAKPUR-II,TEHSIL JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. PRABHJOT KAUR,PCIT PANCHKULA, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

capital gains" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

capital gains" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed

ASHOK KUMAR THAKRAL,JAGADHRI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA , PANCHKULA

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

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

capital gains" & Puneet Singh vs CIT, Karnal (2019) (415 ITR 215) (P&H HC) wherein it was held that “16. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court in Manjeet Singh (HUF) Karta Manjeet Singh vs. Union of India (Civil Writ. Petn. No. 15506 of 2013, decided on 14th Jan., 2014) against which the SLP having been dismissed