SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

SH. AKHIL JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

SH. ASHISH JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

SH. BIPAN JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-III, LUDHIANA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

capital gains on sale of shares. 11. In his submissions, the ld CIT/DR submitted that it is a clear case where incriminating material has been found during the course of search in terms of share certificates and the contract notes. It was submitted that both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have recorded a categorical finding that

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

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

9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

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

9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under

ARJESH KUMAR,PATIALA vs. ITO NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under

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

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

9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under

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

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

9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under

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

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

9. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note that although the assessee contended that the land acquired was agricultural and the interest was part of compensation exempt u/s 10(37), the assessee had not offered any capital gains computation in either the original or revised return to demonstrate the applicability of section 10(37). It was held that exemption under

SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

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

1-5 are dismissed.” 4.1 Succinctly, thus, the ld. CIT(A) has held that there was no material to justify such abnormal increase in the share price of Maa Jagdambe, despite it having meager financials; that thus, such rise in share price in the case of Maa Jagdambe was not due to its performance, but it was due to manipulation

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

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

1-5 are dismissed.” 4.1 Succinctly, thus, the ld. CIT(A) has held that there was no material to justify such abnormal increase in the share price of Maa Jagdambe, despite it having meager financials; that thus, such rise in share price in the case of Maa Jagdambe was not due to its performance, but it was due to manipulation

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

1. CIT Vs Najoo Dara Deboo 218 taxman 473 Allahabad HC 2. Aarti Sanjay Kadam vs ITO 172 ITD 362 Mumbai ITAT 3. Seshasayee Steels (P) Ltd. vs ACIT 421 ITR 46 Supreme Court 4. C.S. Atwal vs. CIT 59 taxmann.com 359 P&H HC 5. CIT VS. Balbir Singh Maini 398 ITR 531 Supreme Court 6. CIT vs Atam

KAKA SINGH ALIAS GULJAR SINGH,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA

capital gain of that year shall be\nrecomputed by taking the compensation or consideration as so reduced by\nsuch Court, Tribunal or other authority to be the full value of the\nconsideration. For giving effect to such recomputation, the provisions of the\nnewly inserted (with effect from 1-4-2004) section 155(16) by the Finance Act,\n2003

AVTAR SINGH,VILLAGE MANAKPUR THAKUR DASS vs. ITO WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE

capital gain of that year shall be\nrecomputed by taking the compensation or consideration as so reduced by\nsuch Court, Tribunal or other authority to be the full value of the\nconsideration. For giving effect to such recomputation, the provisions of the\nnewly inserted (with effect from 1-4-2004) section 155(16) by the Finance Act,\n2003