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

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, then the transaction of selling the shares of the group company controlled and managed by Shri SCS should also be given the same treatment. In the cases

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, then the transaction of selling the shares of the group company controlled and managed by Shri SCS should also be given the same treatment. In the cases

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, then the transaction of selling the shares of the group company controlled and managed by Shri SCS should also be given the same treatment. In the cases

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, then the transaction of selling the shares of the group company controlled and managed by Shri SCS should also be given the same treatment. In the cases

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, then the transaction of selling the shares of the group company controlled and managed by Shri SCS should also be given the same treatment. In the cases

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, then the transaction of selling the shares of the group company controlled and managed by Shri SCS should also be given the same treatment. In the cases

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, then the transaction of selling the shares of the group company controlled and managed by Shri SCS should also be given the same treatment. In the cases

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, then the transaction of selling the shares of the group company controlled and managed by Shri SCS should also be given the same treatment. In the cases

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

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

section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term capital gain, then the transaction of selling the shares of the group company controlled and managed by Shri SCS should also be given the same treatment. In the cases

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

58,360/-.\n2.3 That the case of the assessee was selected through CASS system of\nITD for examination of “suspicious sale transaction in sales and exempt\nlong term capital gains shown in return (penny stock tab in ITS)” under the\nscope complete scrutiny.\n2.4 That the statutory notice under Section

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

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

section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained commission expenses are also deleted in all these appeals as a consequence to the finding on main issue. " (emphasis supplied) 13.7 In the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal has followed the earlier decision of the (Delhi Bench) of the Tribunal in ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 50 the case

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 69C of the Act on account of unexplained commission expenses are also deleted in all these appeals as a consequence to the finding on main issue. " (emphasis supplied) 13.7 In the aforesaid decision, the Tribunal has followed the earlier decision of the (Delhi Bench) of the Tribunal in ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 50 the case

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

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

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

58,436/-. According to the assessee, Rs.36 lakhs received in the subsequent assessment year 2008-09 were also offered for tax under the head "capital gains. 14.2 The Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.12.2009, passed under Section

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

58,436/-. According to the assessee, Rs.36 lakhs received in the subsequent assessment year 2008-09 were also offered for tax under the head “capital gains”, but by way of revised return. 5. The Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.12.2009, passed under Section

SH. CHARANJIT SINGH ATWAL,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

58,436/-. According to the assessee, Rs.36 lakhs received in the subsequent assessment year 2008-09 were also offered for tax under the head “capital gains”, but by way of revised return. 5. The Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.12.2009, passed under Section