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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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 10(38) of the Act on the gain arising from the sale of the listed shares. ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 37 DEPARTMENT’S SUBMISSIONS : 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR has contended that as correctly held by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has shown the shares to have

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

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

Section 10(38) of the Act on the gain arising from the sale of the listed shares. ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 37 DEPARTMENT’S SUBMISSIONS : 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR has contended that as correctly held by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has shown the shares to have

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

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

Capital Gain for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 had been retracted as is evident from the Order of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019, placed at Paper Book pages 1 to 40. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not conducted necessary enquiries prior to the passing

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

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

Capital Gain for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 had been retracted as is evident from the Order of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019, placed at Paper Book pages 1 to 40. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not conducted necessary enquiries prior to the passing

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

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

Capital Gain for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 had been retracted as is evident from the Order of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019, placed at Paper Book pages 1 to 40. Therefore, we are unable to concur with the view taken by the Ld. PCIT that the AO had not conducted necessary enquiries prior to the passing

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

40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh PAN: ABZPM7206N (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri Manjit Singh Assessee by : Shri T.N. Singla, CA Date of hearing : 14.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.: The captioned cross appeals, by the Revenue and the assessee, have been filed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chandigarh

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' but 'income from other sources". The assessee's alternate plea that the entire sale proceeds would qualify as agricultural income does not hold in light of ITAT's clear cut finding that the proceeds, in excess o f the amount considered for stamp duty valuation & consequent registration, shall partake the character of 'income from other sources' and assessed

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' but 'income from other sources". The assessee's alternate plea that the entire sale proceeds would qualify as agricultural income does not hold in light of ITAT's clear cut finding that the proceeds, in excess o f the amount considered for stamp duty valuation & consequent registration, shall partake the character of 'income from other sources' and assessed

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' but 'income from other sources". The assessee's alternate plea that the entire sale proceeds would qualify as agricultural income does not hold in light of ITAT's clear cut finding that the proceeds, in excess o f the amount considered for stamp duty valuation & consequent registration, shall partake the character of 'income from other sources' and assessed