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

26 opined (per headnote): "In order to attract liability to tax on capital gains under section 12B of the Indian

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

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

section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown 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 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown 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 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown 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 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown 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 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown 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 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown 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 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain

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

26,00,000/- in the Capital Gain Account Scheme maintained with SBI on 12/09/2012 and has claimed the entire capital gains as exempt under section

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 by relying on\nvarious decisions like N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., A Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 205\nITR 802 (SC), Full Bench decision of Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del), Nova\nPromoters Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del), CIT Vs. Nipun Builders Ltd. 350 ITR 407\nand held that mere issuance of cheque and providing bank detail

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

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

section 69A are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The appellant has been found owner of money lying in his bank account, source and nature of which could not be explained satisfactorily. Further, it is hereby mentioned that power of the CIT (A) are co-terminus with the AO. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme

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 69A are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The appellant has been found owner of money lying in his bank account, source and nature of which could not be explained satisfactorily. Further, it is hereby mentioned that power of the CIT (A) are co-terminus with the AO. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme

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

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

Section 263 (copies of which have been placed in the paper books of each assessee) and, thereafter, the Ld. PCIT, on the basis of the said proposals, issued a notice u/s 263, and, thus, it was argued that the observation of the Ld. PCIT in the impugned order that he had occasion to peruse the assessment record is not correct

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

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

Section 263 (copies of which have been placed in the paper books of each assessee) and, thereafter, the Ld. PCIT, on the basis of the said proposals, issued a notice u/s 263, and, thus, it was argued that the observation of the Ld. PCIT in the impugned order that he had occasion to peruse the assessment record is not correct

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

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

Section 263 (copies of which have been placed in the paper books of each assessee) and, thereafter, the Ld. PCIT, on the basis of the said proposals, issued a notice u/s 263, and, thus, it was argued that the observation of the Ld. PCIT in the impugned order that he had occasion to peruse the assessment record is not correct

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

capital gain had escaped assessment, as the particulars furnished in the return of income were not available to the Assessing Officer. Our attention was drawn to the copy of reasons for reopening vide the notice u/s 148 dated 09-02-12 and that dated 26-03-14 placed at Paper Book pages 10 & 14 to 16 respectively). Ld.Counsel