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 was also recorded of the assessee wherein he admitted to disclose additional income of Rs. 250 crores on account of bogus long- term capital gain

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 was also recorded of the assessee wherein he admitted to disclose additional income of Rs. 250 crores on account of bogus long- term capital gain

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 was also recorded of the assessee wherein he admitted to disclose additional income of Rs. 250 crores on account of bogus long- term capital gain

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 was also recorded of the assessee wherein he admitted to disclose additional income of Rs. 250 crores on account of bogus long- term capital gain

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 was also recorded of the assessee wherein he admitted to disclose additional income of Rs. 250 crores on account of bogus long- term capital gain

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 was also recorded of the assessee wherein he admitted to disclose additional income of Rs. 250 crores on account of bogus long- term capital gain

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 was also recorded of the assessee wherein he admitted to disclose additional income of Rs. 250 crores on account of bogus long- term capital gain

SH. JAI RAM,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

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

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

capital gains during assessment year under appeal and the sale consideration of Rs. 1,74,55,250/- will be offered for taxation only after realization of post dated cheque. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee and considering assessee's reply, referred to provisions of Section

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

capital gains during assessment year under appeal and the sale consideration of Rs. 1,74,55,250/- will be offered for taxation only after realization of post dated cheque. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee and considering assessee's reply, referred to provisions of Section

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250(6) of the Act which is\nhereinafter referred to as the “impugned order\". The relevant AY is 2014-15\nand the corresponding previous year period is from 01/04/2013 to\n31/03/2014.\n2.\nFactual Matrix\nProceedings before AO\n2.1 The assessee derived income from salary, business income from\npartnership firms, capital gains and income from other sources during the\nfinancial year

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

250 after, inter-alia, claiming exemption of Rs.l8,31,36,042 under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains

M/S SANJAY SINGAL HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

250 after, inter-alia, claiming exemption of Rs.l8,31,36,042 under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long-term capital gains

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

250(6) dated 30.04.2024 is erroneous, contrary to the facts of the case and is bad in Law. 2) That the Id. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing the capital loss of Rs. 25,75,000/- claimed by the Appellant and by adding this amount in the sale consideration already declared

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

capital gain. The rest of amount of Rs 2,03,92,500/- was considered as unexplained cash for which the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation and he accordingly added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal against the said order before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

capital gain. The rest of amount of Rs 2,03,92,500/- was considered as unexplained cash for which the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation and he accordingly added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal against the said order before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

capital gain. The rest of amount of Rs 2,03,92,500/- was considered as unexplained cash for which the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation and he accordingly added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal against the said order before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after

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)

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the addition of Rs. 36,67,21,029/- representing sale proceeds of equity shares held by the appellant for more than 12 months

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)

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the addition of Rs. 36,67,21,029/- representing sale proceeds of equity shares held by the appellant for more than 12 months