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

section 2(47) of the IT Act, 1961. We also place reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) (177 ITR 198)(SC) wherein the apex court held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that there was neither an "exchange" nor a "relinquishment" and no capital gains arose from the transaction. An "exchange" involves the transfer

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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

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

section 132(4), 131(IA) of the Act. Based on the above, it was In the cases of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Others Vs. DCIT, Chandigarh (9 Appeals) 24 revealed to the AO that Shri SCS is engaged in the activity of providing accommodation entries in the form of share capital, share premium, unsecured loan and long-term capital gain

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.

Section 50 applies when the depreciable assets alone are transferred. As the land and building has been acquired by the Kol Dam Authorities as such the gain earned by the assessee is long term capital gain and not short term capital gain. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Madras High Court (2010) 328 ITR 69 in the case

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.

Section 50 applies when the depreciable assets alone are transferred. As the land and building has been acquired by the Kol Dam Authorities as such the gain earned by the assessee is long term capital gain and not short term capital gain. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Madras High Court (2010) 328 ITR 69 in the case

S.SURJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

section (1), the amount, if any, already utilised by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new asset together with the amount so deposited shall be deemed to be the cost of the new asset” 9. As far as ulilisation of the amount so deposited in the capital gains

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 on the gain arising from the sale of the listed shares. ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 37 DEPARTMENT’S SUBMISSIONS : 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR has contended that as correctly held by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has shown the shares to have

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 on the gain arising from the sale of the listed shares. ITA 655/CHD/2023 & ITA 610/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 37 DEPARTMENT’S SUBMISSIONS : 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR has contended that as correctly held by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has shown the shares to have

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 263 of the Act without pointing out in which manner the inquiries or verification should have been made. 3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that before allowing exemption on account of long term capital gain on sale and purchase of shares, the AO has made

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 263 of the Act without pointing out in which manner the inquiries or verification should have been made. 3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that before allowing exemption on account of long term capital gain on sale and purchase of shares, the AO has made

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

section 263 of the Act without pointing out in which manner the inquiries or verification should have been made. 3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that before allowing exemption on account of long term capital gain on sale and purchase of shares, the AO has made