DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

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

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

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

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

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

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

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

Capital gains ". Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute ITA Nos.41 to 44, 387, 45 to 54/Chd/17 & CO 16-to 30-Chd-2018- Shri Kulwant Singh & Others, Mohali 8 the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them

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

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

32. The assessee also submitted that the statement of Shri RK Kedia was not reliable as he was changing his stand frequently. The assessee further contended that the statement furnished by him under section 132(4) of the Act admitting an income of Rs. 250 crores dated 21st February 2014 cannot be relied upon as it was given under

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

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

32. The assessee also submitted that the statement of Shri RK Kedia was not reliable as he was changing his stand frequently. The assessee further contended that the statement furnished by him under section 132(4) of the Act admitting an income of Rs. 250 crores dated 21st February 2014 cannot be relied upon as it was given under

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

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

32. The assessee also submitted that the statement of Shri RK Kedia was not reliable as he was changing his stand frequently. The assessee further contended that the statement furnished by him under section 132(4) of the Act admitting an income of Rs. 250 crores dated 21st February 2014 cannot be relied upon as it was given under

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

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

32. The assessee also submitted that the statement of Shri RK Kedia was not reliable as he was changing his stand frequently. The assessee further contended that the statement furnished by him under section 132(4) of the Act admitting an income of Rs. 250 crores dated 21st February 2014 cannot be relied upon as it was given under

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

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

32. The assessee also submitted that the statement of Shri RK Kedia was not reliable as he was changing his stand frequently. The assessee further contended that the statement furnished by him under section 132(4) of the Act admitting an income of Rs. 250 crores dated 21st February 2014 cannot be relied upon as it was given under

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

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

32. The assessee also submitted that the statement of Shri RK Kedia was not reliable as he was changing his stand frequently. The assessee further contended that the statement furnished by him under section 132(4) of the Act admitting an income of Rs. 250 crores dated 21st February 2014 cannot be relied upon as it was given under

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

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

32. The assessee also submitted that the statement of Shri RK Kedia was not reliable as he was changing his stand frequently. The assessee further contended that the statement furnished by him under section 132(4) of the Act admitting an income of Rs. 250 crores dated 21st February 2014 cannot be relied upon as it was given under

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

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

32. The assessee also submitted that the statement of Shri RK Kedia was not reliable as he was changing his stand frequently. The assessee further contended that the statement furnished by him under section 132(4) of the Act admitting an income of Rs. 250 crores dated 21st February 2014 cannot be relied upon as it was given under

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

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

32. The assessee also submitted that the statement of Shri RK Kedia was not reliable as he was changing his stand frequently. The assessee further contended that the statement furnished by him under section 132(4) of the Act admitting an income of Rs. 250 crores dated 21st February 2014 cannot be relied upon as it was given under

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

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 588/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 The DCIT C-V, Ludhiana बनाम M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 473/Chd/2018 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. Hero Nagar, G.T. Road Ludhiana बनाम The ACIT C-V, Ludhiana स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACH4073P

32,08,590/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. The A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs.9,19,28,102/- and LTCG taxable Rs. 7,59,39,798/- and Rs.6,06,39,256/- which were claimed exempt under section

M/S HERO CYCLES LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, C-V, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the\nappeal of the assessee is allowed

32,08,590/- which\nwas processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Later on the case was\nselected for scrutiny. The A.O. during the course of assessment\nproceedings noticed that the assessee earned dividend income of\nRs.9,19,28,102/- and LTCG taxable Rs. 7,59,39,798/- and Rs.6,06,39,256/-\nwhich were claimed exempt under section

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

iii) reference is made to an alleged re-cast of loan from petitioner to Hubtown Limited into an advance against property during year ended 31st March 2019 and the same is not relevant to Assessment Year 2017-2018. (f) Accordingly, it is irrefutable that no incriminating material relating to petitioner has been found during proceedings under Section