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 54B of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had sold land for consideration of Rs. 1,92,01,875/- through Registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.2007. The sale consideration comprised

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

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

section In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 40 133(6)/131 of the Act. Furthermore, the sham transactions generally carried out in an organised manner by the group/network of syndicate and therefore member of such syndicate did not come forward for the cross-examination. 43. The proceedings under the income

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

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

section In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 40 133(6)/131 of the Act. Furthermore, the sham transactions generally carried out in an organised manner by the group/network of syndicate and therefore member of such syndicate did not come forward for the cross-examination. 43. The proceedings under the income

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

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

section In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 40 133(6)/131 of the Act. Furthermore, the sham transactions generally carried out in an organised manner by the group/network of syndicate and therefore member of such syndicate did not come forward for the cross-examination. 43. The proceedings under the income

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

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

section In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 40 133(6)/131 of the Act. Furthermore, the sham transactions generally carried out in an organised manner by the group/network of syndicate and therefore member of such syndicate did not come forward for the cross-examination. 43. The proceedings under the income

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

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

section In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 40 133(6)/131 of the Act. Furthermore, the sham transactions generally carried out in an organised manner by the group/network of syndicate and therefore member of such syndicate did not come forward for the cross-examination. 43. The proceedings under the income

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

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

section In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 40 133(6)/131 of the Act. Furthermore, the sham transactions generally carried out in an organised manner by the group/network of syndicate and therefore member of such syndicate did not come forward for the cross-examination. 43. The proceedings under the income

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

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

section In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 40 133(6)/131 of the Act. Furthermore, the sham transactions generally carried out in an organised manner by the group/network of syndicate and therefore member of such syndicate did not come forward for the cross-examination. 43. The proceedings under the income

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

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

section In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 40 133(6)/131 of the Act. Furthermore, the sham transactions generally carried out in an organised manner by the group/network of syndicate and therefore member of such syndicate did not come forward for the cross-examination. 43. The proceedings under the income

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

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

section In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 40 133(6)/131 of the Act. Furthermore, the sham transactions generally carried out in an organised manner by the group/network of syndicate and therefore member of such syndicate did not come forward for the cross-examination. 43. The proceedings under the income

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.

43,885/- 7,02,657/- 17,59,494/- 1/6th share Total 13,91,627/- 4,17,488/- 12,02,823/- 30,11,938/- 4.1 Taking note from the detail that one of the buildings acquired was a residential building on which Long Term Capital Gain (hereinafter referred to as “LTCG”) arises and further taking the cost of the property from

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.

43,885/- 7,02,657/- 17,59,494/- 1/6th share Total 13,91,627/- 4,17,488/- 12,02,823/- 30,11,938/- 4.1 Taking note from the detail that one of the buildings acquired was a residential building on which Long Term Capital Gain (hereinafter referred to as “LTCG”) arises and further taking the cost of the property from

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

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

6. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The issue is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding, in concurrence with the AO, that the transactions of the assessee, in shares, leading to Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.18,31,36,042/- are sham transactions, not requiring to be added back

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

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

6. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. The issue is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding, in concurrence with the AO, that the transactions of the assessee, in shares, leading to Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.18,31,36,042/- are sham transactions, not requiring to be added back

SANJAY 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

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