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

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

gain on the script of PIL has heavily relied upon the statement of Shri SCS/ RK Kedia/ Manish Arora, OPAK, Praveen Kumar Jainviz a viz the documents found from the premises of SCS and others. In this regard it was submitted that the In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 44 assessee does

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

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

gain on the script of PIL has heavily relied upon the statement of Shri SCS/ RK Kedia/ Manish Arora, OPAK, Praveen Kumar Jainviz a viz the documents found from the premises of SCS and others. In this regard it was submitted that the In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 44 assessee does

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

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

gain on the script of PIL has heavily relied upon the statement of Shri SCS/ RK Kedia/ Manish Arora, OPAK, Praveen Kumar Jainviz a viz the documents found from the premises of SCS and others. In this regard it was submitted that the In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 44 assessee does

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

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

gain on the script of PIL has heavily relied upon the statement of Shri SCS/ RK Kedia/ Manish Arora, OPAK, Praveen Kumar Jainviz a viz the documents found from the premises of SCS and others. In this regard it was submitted that the In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 44 assessee does

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

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

gain on the script of PIL has heavily relied upon the statement of Shri SCS/ RK Kedia/ Manish Arora, OPAK, Praveen Kumar Jainviz a viz the documents found from the premises of SCS and others. In this regard it was submitted that the In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 44 assessee does

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

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

gain on the script of PIL has heavily relied upon the statement of Shri SCS/ RK Kedia/ Manish Arora, OPAK, Praveen Kumar Jainviz a viz the documents found from the premises of SCS and others. In this regard it was submitted that the In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 44 assessee does

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

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

gain on the script of PIL has heavily relied upon the statement of Shri SCS/ RK Kedia/ Manish Arora, OPAK, Praveen Kumar Jainviz a viz the documents found from the premises of SCS and others. In this regard it was submitted that the In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 44 assessee does

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

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

gain on the script of PIL has heavily relied upon the statement of Shri SCS/ RK Kedia/ Manish Arora, OPAK, Praveen Kumar Jainviz a viz the documents found from the premises of SCS and others. In this regard it was submitted that the In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 44 assessee does

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gains the Assessing Officer himself\ngave credit to the assessee for indexed cost of acquisition to the extent of Rs.\n11,67,821 taking the purchase price at Rs.11,00,000. Further, we find that the\nassessee had sold shares through MTL shares and Stock Brokers Limited as is noted\nby the Assessing Officer in reply to question

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

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

44 investment in the aforesaid Company as a prudent investor at a reasonable price, which investment was held for a substantial period, i.e., for around 18 months and thereafter, it was sold on recognized stock exchange. 11. As submitted, the share transaction undertaken by the appellant was genuine and the exemption claimed under section 10(38) on gain arising 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)

44 investment in the aforesaid Company as a prudent investor at a reasonable price, which investment was held for a substantial period, i.e., for around 18 months and thereafter, it was sold on recognized stock exchange. 11. As submitted, the share transaction undertaken by the appellant was genuine and the exemption claimed under section 10(38) on gain arising from

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would be an anomalous result which could never have been contemplated by the legislature, since the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Gift

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

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

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