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

43,554/- on account of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land and in denying the deduction under section

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

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

capital gain. For this purpose, the commission was also paid by the group of the assessee which was also appearing in the seized documents. 42. Regarding the contention of the assessee for providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons as discussed above, it was noticed by the AO that the addition was not made merely on the basis

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

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

capital gain. For this purpose, the commission was also paid by the group of the assessee which was also appearing in the seized documents. 42. Regarding the contention of the assessee for providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons as discussed above, it was noticed by the AO that the addition was not made merely on the basis

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

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

capital gain. For this purpose, the commission was also paid by the group of the assessee which was also appearing in the seized documents. 42. Regarding the contention of the assessee for providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons as discussed above, it was noticed by the AO that the addition was not made merely on the basis

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

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

capital gain. For this purpose, the commission was also paid by the group of the assessee which was also appearing in the seized documents. 42. Regarding the contention of the assessee for providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons as discussed above, it was noticed by the AO that the addition was not made merely on the basis

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

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

capital gain. For this purpose, the commission was also paid by the group of the assessee which was also appearing in the seized documents. 42. Regarding the contention of the assessee for providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons as discussed above, it was noticed by the AO that the addition was not made merely on the basis

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

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

capital gain. For this purpose, the commission was also paid by the group of the assessee which was also appearing in the seized documents. 42. Regarding the contention of the assessee for providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons as discussed above, it was noticed by the AO that the addition was not made merely on the basis

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

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

capital gain. For this purpose, the commission was also paid by the group of the assessee which was also appearing in the seized documents. 42. Regarding the contention of the assessee for providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons as discussed above, it was noticed by the AO that the addition was not made merely on the basis

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

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

capital gain. For this purpose, the commission was also paid by the group of the assessee which was also appearing in the seized documents. 42. Regarding the contention of the assessee for providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons as discussed above, it was noticed by the AO that the addition was not made merely on the basis

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

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

capital gain. For this purpose, the commission was also paid by the group of the assessee which was also appearing in the seized documents. 42. Regarding the contention of the assessee for providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the persons as discussed above, it was noticed by the AO that the addition was not made merely on the basis

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. 1,76,283/- Less: Funds invested in construction

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. 1,76,283/- Less: Funds invested in construction

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

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search