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

gains at two different points of time on receipts of part sale consideration in two financial years. Further, I make reference to the word 'transfer' of capital assets as in section 2(47

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

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

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

capital gain was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 42 bogus in nature. It is the settled law that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee until and unless the assessee is afforded the opportunity of cross verification. 47. It was also contended that the conditions as specified under section

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

section 2(47)(ii) and 2{47)(vi) also make the assessee liable for capital gains under the Income Tax Act 1961. 8. On the facts

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-4, PANCHKULA vs. SMT. SEEMA DHILLON, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

section 2(47)(ii) and 2(47)(vi) also make the assessee liable for capital gains under the Income Tax Act 1961 ? 14. Whether

ITO, W-4, PANCHKULA vs. MRS. SUNITA, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

section 2(47)(ii) and 2(47)(vi) also make the assessee liable for capital gains under the Income Tax Act 1961 ? 14. Whether

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

capital gains. 14.2 The Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.12.2009, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, held that since physical and vacant possession had been handed over under the JDA, the same would tantamount to "transfer" within the meaning of Sections 2(47

ITO, MOHALI vs. SH. DALHIT SINGH, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

section 2(47)(ii) and 2(47)(vi) also make the assessee liable for capital gains under the Income Tax Act 1961. 8. On the facts

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