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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

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

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

section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

capital gain. The rest of amount of Rs 2,03,92,500/- was considered as unexplained cash for which the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation and he accordingly added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal against the said order before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

capital gain. The rest of amount of Rs 2,03,92,500/- was considered as unexplained cash for which the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation and he accordingly added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal against the said order before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

capital gain. The rest of amount of Rs 2,03,92,500/- was considered as unexplained cash for which the assessee had failed to offer satisfactory explanation and he accordingly added the same into the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal against the said order before CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

SANJAY SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

SANJAY SINGAL (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains. 9.1 We find from the record that the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the same arguments, information, evidence including findings of search

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

92 ITR 513 to hold that penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is attracted notwithstanding the fact that the assessee filed a revised return, where the omission is deliberate and where the return is revised only after the 7 A.Y.2007-08 department got information. Further, it has been held in Bhairav Lai Verma vs. Union of India (ALL) 238 ITR 855 that