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. 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. 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

HET RAM SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, , SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

section 148 was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed return shown NIL capital gain as under: Compensation received: Rs. 30,11,938/- Cost of construction Rs. 5,96,980/- Year of construction 1983-84 Indexed cost 596980 x 551/116 Rs. 28,35,655/- Capital Gain: Rs. 1

DHEERUMAL SHARMA,MANDI vs. ITO, SUNDERNAGAR

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri. Het Ram Sharma Vs. The Ito Vill & P.O. Tattapani Sundernagar Tehsil Karsog Mandi, H.P. Mandi, H.P.

section 148 was issued to the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed return shown NIL capital gain as under: Compensation received: Rs. 30,11,938/- Cost of construction Rs. 5,96,980/- Year of construction 1983-84 Indexed cost 596980 x 551/116 Rs. 28,35,655/- Capital Gain: Rs. 1

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

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

35,337,680 5,517,492 38,128,964 78,984,136 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses Sub-total - SS - (A) 596,547,700 98,434,105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total

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

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

35,337,680 5,517,492 38,128,964 78,984,136 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses Sub-total - SS - (A) 596,547,700 98,434,105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total

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

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

35,337,680 5,517,492 38,128,964 78,984,136 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses Sub-total - SS - (A) 596,547,700 98,434,105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total

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

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

35,337,680 5,517,492 38,128,964 78,984,136 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses Sub-total - SS - (A) 596,547,700 98,434,105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total

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

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

35,337,680 5,517,492 38,128,964 78,984,136 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses Sub-total - SS - (A) 596,547,700 98,434,105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total

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

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

35,337,680 5,517,492 38,128,964 78,984,136 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses Sub-total - SS - (A) 596,547,700 98,434,105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total

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

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

35,337,680 5,517,492 38,128,964 78,984,136 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses Sub-total - SS - (A) 596,547,700 98,434,105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total

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

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

35,337,680 5,517,492 38,128,964 78,984,136 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses Sub-total - SS - (A) 596,547,700 98,434,105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total

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

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

35,337,680 5,517,492 38,128,964 78,984,136 6.5% of LTCG u/s 69C towards alleged commission expenses Sub-total - SS - (A) 596,547,700 98,434,105 636,728,415 1,331,710,220 Smt. Aarti Singal Particulars A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 Total 835,373,595 1,604,185,445 Total

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

1) of the present Act and sub-section (2) of section 12B of the 1922 Act was in pari materia to the provisions of section 48 of the present Act. The Supreme Court was of the view that the expression "full value of consideration" in the main part of section 12B(2) of the Act cannot be construed as having