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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12 months. The shares were sold through the brokers registered

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12 months. The shares were sold through the brokers registered

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12 months. The shares were sold through the brokers registered

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12 months. The shares were sold through the brokers registered

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12 months. The shares were sold through the brokers registered

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12 months. The shares were sold through the brokers registered

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

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

capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee submitted that he acquired the shares of PIL as share warrant which were subsequently converted into equity shares. Consequently the shares were dematerialised and held for more than 12 months. The shares were sold through the brokers registered

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

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gain\nof Rs.1.04,06,769/- as unexplained credit u/s.68 of the Act. It is submitted\nthat the assessee has purchased shares with account payee cheques,\nshares were, held under demat account after two years the shares were\nsold through stock exchange and the amount was received through\nRTGS. The purchase bills, demat account copy and sale bills were\nfurnished, hence

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

capital gain will fall under the head income from other sources. Thus, it is inferred that the income, whose source is not known, identified or explained will not be covered under the head income from other sources. The assessee has claimed in the return of income that income of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment

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

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

gains to the appellant. M/s Maa Jagdambe Tradelinks Limited is engaged in the business of textiles. The total revenue of the said company for the financial years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 aggregated to Rs.1.24 crores, Rs.28.20 crores and Rs. 122.65 crores, respectively, and profit/(loss) during the said periods was (Rs.16,618/-), Rs.59,08,431/-and Rs.76

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

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

gains to the appellant. M/s Maa Jagdambe Tradelinks Limited is engaged in the business of textiles. The total revenue of the said company for the financial years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 aggregated to Rs.1.24 crores, Rs.28.20 crores and Rs. 122.65 crores, respectively, and profit/(loss) during the said periods was (Rs.16,618/-), Rs.59,08,431/-and Rs.76

SH. SURINDER KUMAR,RAJPURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 433 /Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम Shri Mohinder Kumar, The Acit, #371, Dalima Vihar, Circle, Rajpaura 140401 Patiala Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aenpk2131D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains, thus, will be as under:- 1. Fair market value of the property as estimated by the DVO: = Rs. 3,89,41,260/- 1/6th Share of the Assessee 2. : Rs. 64,90,210/- 433 to 435 -Chd-2024 Mohinder Singh, Rajpura & Ors, Rajpura 10 3. Less amount surrendered by the Assessee on account of unexplained investment

SH. PAWAN KUMAR,RAJPURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 433 /Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम Shri Mohinder Kumar, The Acit, #371, Dalima Vihar, Circle, Rajpaura 140401 Patiala Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aenpk2131D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains, thus, will be as under:- 1. Fair market value of the property as estimated by the DVO: = Rs. 3,89,41,260/- 1/6th Share of the Assessee 2. : Rs. 64,90,210/- 433 to 435 -Chd-2024 Mohinder Singh, Rajpura & Ors, Rajpura 10 3. Less amount surrendered by the Assessee on account of unexplained investment

SH. MOHINDER KUMAR,RAJPURA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, all the three captioned appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 433 /Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 बनाम Shri Mohinder Kumar, The Acit, #371, Dalima Vihar, Circle, Rajpaura 140401 Patiala Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aenpk2131D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

capital gains, thus, will be as under:- 1. Fair market value of the property as estimated by the DVO: = Rs. 3,89,41,260/- 1/6th Share of the Assessee 2. : Rs. 64,90,210/- 433 to 435 -Chd-2024 Mohinder Singh, Rajpura & Ors, Rajpura 10 3. Less amount surrendered by the Assessee on account of unexplained investment

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)

investment in the shares of these companies. He has also sought support from the data relating to share trade of these companies on the basis of which it was concluded that certain brokers were engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries in the form of LTCG. 4.17 Following the same logic and findings, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the said

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)

investment in the shares of these companies. He has also sought support from the data relating to share trade of these companies on the basis of which it was concluded that certain brokers were engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries in the form of LTCG. 4.17 Following the same logic and findings, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the said