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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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

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

capital gain. Simultaneously, CBI has registered case as well as the ED has recorded statement of Shri RK Kedia under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”). Therefore, it is necessary to take on record disclosure made by the persons before the ED and other prosecuting agencies. With regard to the position whether the Revenue

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.

1,39,962/- Net short term capital gain. Rs. 11,12,481/- The Ld. Income-tax Officer has pointed out that the buildings which were acquired by the LAO was hotel/dhaba which was used for commercial purpose and hence that attracts short term capital gain within the meaning of section 45 of the Income tax Act. In this regard

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.

1,39,962/- Net short term capital gain. Rs. 11,12,481/- The Ld. Income-tax Officer has pointed out that the buildings which were acquired by the LAO was hotel/dhaba which was used for commercial purpose and hence that attracts short term capital gain within the meaning of section 45 of the Income tax Act. In this regard

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh [2016] 69 taxmann.com 393 (Chandigarh -Trib.) and the following has been held: 25. The basic issue is whether the tax is to be deducted while making these impugned payments. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act in this regard. The provisions

DCIT, C-4(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD,, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh [2016] 69 taxmann.com 393 (Chandigarh -Trib.) and the following has been held: 25. The basic issue is whether the tax is to be deducted while making these impugned payments. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act in this regard. The provisions

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh [2016] 69 taxmann.com 393 (Chandigarh -Trib.) and the following has been held: 25. The basic issue is whether the tax is to be deducted while making these impugned payments. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act in this regard. The provisions

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S WINSOME YARNS LTD., CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 4(1), Chandigarh [2016] 69 taxmann.com 393 (Chandigarh -Trib.) and the following has been held: 25. The basic issue is whether the tax is to be deducted while making these impugned payments. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act in this regard. The provisions

SAHIBZADA TIMBER AND PLY PRIVATE LIMITED ,MOHALI vs. DCIT, ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 699/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Sahibzada Timber & Ply Private Limited B41-42, Phase-3, Indl. Aera, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-2 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAQCS2239G अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mohit Dhiman, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR Shri Dharam Vir, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of He

gains. Sub-section (1) was in pari materia to section 45(1) of the present Act and sub-section (2) of section 12B of the 1922 Act was in pari materia to the provisions of section 48 of the present Act. The Supreme Court was of the view that the expression "full value of consideration" in the main part

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

In the result, the ground no

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

1) of the Act and thus it was a case of an unabated assessment. 6.1 It was submitted that the said disclosed income / documents cannot be treated as incriminating material. It was further submitted that there is no evidence or document which was found or noticed to suggest any receipt outside the books of accounts and the said capital gain

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