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

3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- 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

SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

3, assessee challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,88,43,554/- 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

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.

3. That the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) as well that of Income-tax Officer be quashed and income assessed under short term capital gain be assessed as long term capital gain and deduction u/s 54 be allowed. 7. As is evident from the above the assessee has before us challenged the action

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.

3. That the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) as well that of Income-tax Officer be quashed and income assessed under short term capital gain be assessed as long term capital gain and deduction u/s 54 be allowed. 7. As is evident from the above the assessee has before us challenged the action

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

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

3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 41 44. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) 45. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged companies were

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

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

3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 41 44. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) 45. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged companies were

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

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

3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 41 44. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) 45. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged companies were

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

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

3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 41 44. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) 45. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged companies were

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

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

3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 41 44. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) 45. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged companies were

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

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

3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 41 44. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) 45. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged companies were

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

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

3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 41 44. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) 45. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged companies were

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

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

3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 41 44. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) 45. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged companies were

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

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

3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 41 44. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) 45. The assessee before the learned CIT (A) submitted that the transactions for the purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged companies were

SAROJ CHAUDHARY BALA,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain of that year shall be recomputed by taking the compensation or consideration as so reduced by such Court, Tribunal or other authority to be the full value of the consideration. For giving effect to such recomputation, the provisions of the newly inserted (with effect from 1-4-2004) section 155(16) by the Finance

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain of that year shall be recomputed by taking the compensation or consideration as so reduced by such Court, Tribunal or other authority to be the full value of the consideration. For giving effect to such recomputation, the provisions of the newly inserted (with effect from 1-4-2004) section 155(16) by the Finance

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain of that year shall be recomputed by taking the compensation or consideration as so reduced by such Court, Tribunal or other authority to be the full value of the consideration. For giving effect to such recomputation, the provisions of the newly inserted (with effect from 1-4-2004) section 155(16) by the Finance

SMT. SHANKRI DEVI,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT, PANCKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain of that year shall be recomputed by taking the compensation or consideration as so reduced by such Court, Tribunal or other authority to be the full value of the consideration. For giving effect to such recomputation, the provisions of the newly inserted (with effect from 1-4-2004) section 155(16) by the Finance

SH. AMARDEEP SINGH ATHWAL,YAMUNANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, YAMUNANAGAR

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

capital gain of that year shall be recomputed by taking the compensation or consideration as so reduced by such Court, Tribunal or other authority to be the full value of the consideration. For giving effect to such recomputation, the provisions of the newly inserted (with effect from 1-4-2004) section 155(16) by the Finance