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

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

section 132 of the Act, in the case of various persons not connected with the assessee, have collected the documents as well as recorded the statements. Based on the same it was alleged that the assessee has generated bogus long-term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO without pointing out any defects in the primary documents

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

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

section 132 of the Act, in the case of various persons not connected with the assessee, have collected the documents as well as recorded the statements. Based on the same it was alleged that the assessee has generated bogus long-term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO without pointing out any defects in the primary documents

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

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

section 132 of the Act, in the case of various persons not connected with the assessee, have collected the documents as well as recorded the statements. Based on the same it was alleged that the assessee has generated bogus long-term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO without pointing out any defects in the primary documents

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

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

section 132 of the Act, in the case of various persons not connected with the assessee, have collected the documents as well as recorded the statements. Based on the same it was alleged that the assessee has generated bogus long-term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO without pointing out any defects in the primary documents

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

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

section 132 of the Act, in the case of various persons not connected with the assessee, have collected the documents as well as recorded the statements. Based on the same it was alleged that the assessee has generated bogus long-term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO without pointing out any defects in the primary documents

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

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

section 132 of the Act, in the case of various persons not connected with the assessee, have collected the documents as well as recorded the statements. Based on the same it was alleged that the assessee has generated bogus long-term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO without pointing out any defects in the primary documents

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

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

section 132 of the Act, in the case of various persons not connected with the assessee, have collected the documents as well as recorded the statements. Based on the same it was alleged that the assessee has generated bogus long-term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO without pointing out any defects in the primary documents

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

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

section 132 of the Act, in the case of various persons not connected with the assessee, have collected the documents as well as recorded the statements. Based on the same it was alleged that the assessee has generated bogus long-term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO without pointing out any defects in the primary documents

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

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

section 132 of the Act, in the case of various persons not connected with the assessee, have collected the documents as well as recorded the statements. Based on the same it was alleged that the assessee has generated bogus long-term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the AO without pointing out any defects in the primary documents

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 in respect of long-term capital gains earned on transfer of shares held in M/s Maa Jagdambe Trade Link Limited, as under: Name of No. of Purchase of shares Sale of shares Long term Share shares Date of Cost Price Date of Sale Price capital gain Sale purchase Maa 18.75.000 12.03.2013 Rs.37,50.000 Various

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 in respect of long-term capital gains earned on transfer of shares held in M/s Maa Jagdambe Trade Link Limited, as under: Name of No. of Purchase of shares Sale of shares Long term Share shares Date of Cost Price Date of Sale Price capital gain Sale purchase Maa 18.75.000 12.03.2013 Rs.37,50.000 Various

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

46,30,000/-. However the same was registered for a sum of Rs. 42,37,500. During the assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Mohinder Singh, the AO concluded that in the registered sale deeds the sale proceeds were mentioned at Rs. 42,37,500/- and the AO treated the same as capital gain. The rest of amount

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

46,30,000/-. However the same was registered for a sum of Rs. 42,37,500. During the assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Mohinder Singh, the AO concluded that in the registered sale deeds the sale proceeds were mentioned at Rs. 42,37,500/- and the AO treated the same as capital gain. The rest of amount

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

46,30,000/-. However the same was registered for a sum of Rs. 42,37,500. During the assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Mohinder Singh, the AO concluded that in the registered sale deeds the sale proceeds were mentioned at Rs. 42,37,500/- and the AO treated the same as capital gain. The rest of amount

DEVI DAYAL,KAITHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , KAITHAL

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 899/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devi Dayal, Vs The Ito, Pundri Anaj Mandi, Ward – 1, Kaithal-Haryana 136026. Kaithal. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aajpd5851H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2025

gains" shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts, namely: (i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; (ii) the cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto:" 18. Section

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

capital gain. It was held a light or interest in an immovable property can accrue only by way of an agreement embodying consensus ad idem as against the confirmation letter that does confer any right to claim title. Similarly in the case of R.L. Sood (supra), the Honorable High Court has declined request of the revenue to call for reference

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

gain is derived would not disentitle them\nfrom the benefit of section 10(46).\n183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

gain is derived would not disentitle them\nfrom the benefit of section 10(46).\n183. In this context, it would be useful to consider the judgment of\nthe Delhi and Allahabad High Courts in Greater Noida Industrial\nDevelopment Authority (supra) (hereafter \"GNIDA\") and CIT v.\nYamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority [2017] 81\ntaxmann.com 208/395 ITR 18/298