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

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

set of factors. There has to be some reason to justify such abnormal rise in the share price of Maa Jagdambe. It may be some tangible or intangible information to justify such abrupt rise. However, in this case there was no material to justify for such abnormal increase in the share price of Maa Jagdambe despite having meager financials. Thus

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

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

set of factors. There has to be some reason to justify such abnormal rise in the share price of Maa Jagdambe. It may be some tangible or intangible information to justify such abrupt rise. However, in this case there was no material to justify for such abnormal increase in the share price of Maa Jagdambe despite having meager financials. Thus

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

set- aside and that of the AO be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add any other ground of appeal which may arise at the time of hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is an Executive President in M/s Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd. and is drawing salary from the said company. The Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. SUNIL KUMAR SOOD, PANCHKULA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Gain as under: A.Y.2017-18 9 Sale consideration Rs. 4,32,59,600/- Less indexed cost of acquisition (19070602 x 497/112) Rs. 4,31,67,862/- LTCG Rs.91,738/- Less brought forward Long Term Capital Loss (-)Rs.91,738/- Taxable LTCG NIL (c ) As this original amount was appearing in his books of account as liability, he passed accounting entry as under

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain on sale of an asset by\nraising queries and after considering submissions of assessee, PCIT\nwas not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 by\ntreating assessment order as erroneous.\n\nReliance was also placed on judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nCase in PCIT Vs. Clix Finance India (P) reported in (2024) 160\nTAxmann.com 357 (Delhi

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

loss to the state exchequer. Even, it cannot be said that he had not got any benefit by falsely representing about the sale consideration. If, the purchaser had to pay higher stamp duty, then it accordingly will go on to reduce the sale consideration/amount payable to the seller as the purchaser takes into consideration the total amount which he would

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

loss to the state exchequer. Even, it cannot be said that he had not got any benefit by falsely representing about the sale consideration. If, the purchaser had to pay higher stamp duty, then it accordingly will go on to reduce the sale consideration/amount payable to the seller as the purchaser takes into consideration the total amount which he would

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

loss to the state exchequer. Even, it cannot be said that he had not got any benefit by falsely representing about the sale consideration. If, the purchaser had to pay higher stamp duty, then it accordingly will go on to reduce the sale consideration/amount payable to the seller as the purchaser takes into consideration the total amount which he would

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

loss”. 6. In the light of above, if we examine the facts and circumstances of the case, then it would reveal that by making this appeal time barred, assessee would not gain anything. He would be under a huge tax liability without getting adjudication of the dispute on merit. Thus, it was not delayed deliberately nor it was adopted

M/S LUDHIANA LEASING PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 241/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/S Ludhiana Leasing Pvt.Ltd., बनाम The Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, #168, Sector 8, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacl6365N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

loss. Even looking at the Explanation 1 to section 115JB would also show that there is no such provision of excluding of the capital gains earned on the sale of capital asset. Therefore, the first contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is not tenable. However, so far as the alternate contention of the ld. Counsel that the assessee

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

loss computed under any of the five heads mentioned in section 14 – (i) ‘salary’, (ii) ‘income from house property’, (iii) ‘profits and gains from business or profession’, (iv) ‘capital gains’ and (v) ‘income from other sources’ – cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon. Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition

CEIGALL INDIA LIMITED, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

Capital Gain (New Issue)(Beyond the issue for Issue considered by which scrutiny assessment was undertaken) the PCITand set aside to the file of Assessing Officer. 4. ICDS compliance and Issue of ICDS (Already discussed during Issue considered by adjustment original proceedings) as is borne out from the the PCIT and set aside relevant query raised

SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL,FATEHABAD vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 20/01/2023 In Appeal No. 10853/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For The A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 20/01/2023 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Order.

capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

Capital Gain earned on alleged purchase and sale of a penny stock. 8. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. We find that issues agitated in this appeal are verbatim same, therefore, for the facility of reference, we take note of our order passed in ITA 306/CHD/2019 and other appeals, which reads as under

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

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

set of appeals, for this time gap of one year, the market value comes to Rs.1012.50, which is rounded off to Rs.1013/- per square yard. Accordingly, the land owners are held entitled to receive the amount of compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 1013/- per square yard for their acquired land, from the date of notification under Section

RANJIT SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CPC DEPARTMENT

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

set of appeals, for this time gap of one year, the market value comes to Rs.1012.50, which is rounded off to Rs.1013/- per square yard. Accordingly, the land owners are held entitled to receive the amount of compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 1013/- per square yard for their acquired land, from the date of notification under Section

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

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

set of appeals, for this time gap of one year, the market value comes to Rs.1012.50, which is rounded off to Rs.1013/- per square yard. Accordingly, the land owners are held entitled to receive the amount of compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 1013/- per square yard for their acquired land, from the date of notification under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD vs. MAHESH NAGPAL, FATEHABAD

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

set of appeals, for this time gap of one year, the market value comes to Rs.1012.50, which is rounded off to Rs.1013/- per square yard. Accordingly, the land owners are held entitled to receive the amount of compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 1013/- per square yard for their acquired land, from the date of notification under Section