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

36,650/- u/s 54B & 54F invested subsequent to the receipt of money against sale of agriculture land. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts in adopting indexed cost of land valued on the basis of land value on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 3,58,321/-. 4. That learned CIT (Appeals) has erred

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Since the onus lies upon the assessee, it was expected from the assessee to produce the brokers through whom the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange, counterparties who purchased the shares from the assessee, the directors of the companies with respect to which the long-term capital gain was declared. The production

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Since the onus lies upon the assessee, it was expected from the assessee to produce the brokers through whom the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange, counterparties who purchased the shares from the assessee, the directors of the companies with respect to which the long-term capital gain was declared. The production

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Since the onus lies upon the assessee, it was expected from the assessee to produce the brokers through whom the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange, counterparties who purchased the shares from the assessee, the directors of the companies with respect to which the long-term capital gain was declared. The production

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Since the onus lies upon the assessee, it was expected from the assessee to produce the brokers through whom the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange, counterparties who purchased the shares from the assessee, the directors of the companies with respect to which the long-term capital gain was declared. The production

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Since the onus lies upon the assessee, it was expected from the assessee to produce the brokers through whom the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange, counterparties who purchased the shares from the assessee, the directors of the companies with respect to which the long-term capital gain was declared. The production

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Since the onus lies upon the assessee, it was expected from the assessee to produce the brokers through whom the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange, counterparties who purchased the shares from the assessee, the directors of the companies with respect to which the long-term capital gain was declared. The production

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Since the onus lies upon the assessee, it was expected from the assessee to produce the brokers through whom the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange, counterparties who purchased the shares from the assessee, the directors of the companies with respect to which the long-term capital gain was declared. The production

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Since the onus lies upon the assessee, it was expected from the assessee to produce the brokers through whom the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange, counterparties who purchased the shares from the assessee, the directors of the companies with respect to which the long-term capital gain was declared. The production

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Since the onus lies upon the assessee, it was expected from the assessee to produce the brokers through whom the transactions were carried out at the stock exchange, counterparties who purchased the shares from the assessee, the directors of the companies with respect to which the long-term capital gain was declared. The production

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.

36 to 38. 11. Ld. Counsel stated that in the case of Smt. Radha Devi the land was owned by her husband while the building had been constructed by the assesee and the compensation paid to the assesee was on account of the said building only which the ITAT had held ,being a business/depreciable asset, the capital gain earned thereon

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.

36 to 38. 11. Ld. Counsel stated that in the case of Smt. Radha Devi the land was owned by her husband while the building had been constructed by the assesee and the compensation paid to the assesee was on account of the said building only which the ITAT had held ,being a business/depreciable asset, the capital gain earned thereon

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

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

Capital Gain’ for which, the exemption u/s 10(36) had been claimed as well as the issue of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on both the issues mentioned in the show cause notice

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

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

Capital Gain’ for which, the exemption u/s 10(36) had been claimed as well as the issue of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on both the issues mentioned in the show cause notice

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

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

Capital Gain’ for which, the exemption u/s 10(36) had been claimed as well as the issue of deduction claimed u/s 57 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee gave a detailed response to the show cause notice demonstrating that the AO had conducted adequate enquiries on both the issues mentioned in the show cause notice

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

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

Capital Gain of Rs.18,31,36,042/- are sham transactions, not requiring to be added back either under Section 69A of the Income

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

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

Capital Gain of Rs.18,31,36,042/- are sham transactions, not requiring to be added back either under Section 69A of the Income

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