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

capital gain at two points of time on receipt of part sale consideration by two cheques encashed on different dates falling in two financial years. Therefore, the appellant's reliance on these cases is not relevant to the facts of the instant case. 6.10 The appellant has further relied on the decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Harbour

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

42,37,500/- and the AO treated the same as capital gain. The rest of amount of Rs 2,03,92,500/- was considered as unexplained cash for which the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation and he accordingly added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal against

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

42,37,500/- and the AO treated the same as capital gain. The rest of amount of Rs 2,03,92,500/- was considered as unexplained cash for which the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation and he accordingly added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal against

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

42,37,500/- and the AO treated the same as capital gain. The rest of amount of Rs 2,03,92,500/- was considered as unexplained cash for which the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation and he accordingly added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal against

M/S PURE DRINK LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE, PATIALA

Bench: Hon'Ble Chandigarh Itat Was 27Th March 2020. (Ii) It Is Submitted That Management Of Appellant Company Is Based Is Delhi. Owing To Covid-19 Pandemic Nationwide Lock Down Was Enforced By The Government From 22Nd March 2020 & Therefore The Appellant Was Unable To Physically File The Appeal Documents Before Hon'Ble Itat.

42 days beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in delivery of documents by India Post would again have been owing to National Lockdown. From facts stated above, it is apparent that there is no delay in filling of appeal as the delay in receiving of appeal documents by Court Registry

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of Rs 2875041/- to be\nadded in income tax return u/s 69A of IT Act.\n\nFrom the above, it is clear that on the basis of material available on\nrecord, the AO has not made any addition after considering\nmaterial available on record, evidences submitted by the assessee,\ncontract notes, Demat A/c and thus AO has duly

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

42,50,000/- was receivable by all the individual members of the society taken together. In addition to this, as consideration in kind each such member (i.e. members owing plot of 500 sq. yd) would receive one furnished flat measuring 2250 sq. ft. to be constructed by M/s Tata Housing Development Company Ltd. The cost of each furnished flat