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

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

money u/s 68/69C being bogus long-term capital gain and commission expenses thereon. Thus the AO for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 made additions for a sum of Rs. 59,85,99,451/- on account of bogus long term capital gain and Rs. 3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri

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

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

money u/s 68/69C being bogus long-term capital gain and commission expenses thereon. Thus the AO for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 made additions for a sum of Rs. 59,85,99,451/- on account of bogus long term capital gain and Rs. 3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri

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

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

money u/s 68/69C being bogus long-term capital gain and commission expenses thereon. Thus the AO for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 made additions for a sum of Rs. 59,85,99,451/- on account of bogus long term capital gain and Rs. 3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri

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

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

money u/s 68/69C being bogus long-term capital gain and commission expenses thereon. Thus the AO for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 made additions for a sum of Rs. 59,85,99,451/- on account of bogus long term capital gain and Rs. 3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri

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

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

money u/s 68/69C being bogus long-term capital gain and commission expenses thereon. Thus the AO for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 made additions for a sum of Rs. 59,85,99,451/- on account of bogus long term capital gain and Rs. 3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri

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

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

money u/s 68/69C being bogus long-term capital gain and commission expenses thereon. Thus the AO for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 made additions for a sum of Rs. 59,85,99,451/- on account of bogus long term capital gain and Rs. 3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri

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

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

money u/s 68/69C being bogus long-term capital gain and commission expenses thereon. Thus the AO for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2014-15 made additions for a sum of Rs. 59,85,99,451/- on account of bogus long term capital gain and Rs. 3,81,28,694/- on account of commission charges. In the cases of Shri

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

money was raised through preferential allotment?\nAns: I am unable to explain the same. Further Mr. Manish Baid is the person\nwho can explain this, who has used the shares of N C.L. Research and\nFinancial Services Ltd. for providing bogus Long Term Capital Gain.\nQ.21 How was the funds received through the preferential allotment\nutilized?\nAns: I am unable

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

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

money in the garb of exempt LTCG. Therefore, the total receipts credited in various bank accounts of the assessee against these bogus/sham transactions have to be treated as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 alongwith the unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6.5% of the total LTCG of the year for arranging these entries during the FY2014

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

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

money in the garb of exempt LTCG. Therefore, the total receipts credited in various bank accounts of the assessee against these bogus/sham transactions have to be treated as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 alongwith the unaccounted commission expenditure @ 6.5% of the total LTCG of the year for arranging these entries during the FY2014

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)

capital gains of Rs. 36,05,27,391/- arising to the Appellant on sale of shares of "MJTLL" and "PSISL" are also bogus. The Assessing Officer in his concluding paragraph at page 25 of the assessment order has held as follows:- "In view of the considering details discussion in the assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15, it is established that

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)

capital gains of Rs. 36,05,27,391/- arising to the Appellant on sale of shares of "MJTLL" and "PSISL" are also bogus. The Assessing Officer in his concluding paragraph at page 25 of the assessment order has held as follows:- "In view of the considering details discussion in the assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15, it is established that

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)

capital gains of Rs. 36,05,27,391/- arising to the Appellant on sale of shares of "MJTLL" and "PSISL" are also bogus. The Assessing Officer in his concluding paragraph at page 25 of the assessment order has held as follows:- "In view of the considering details discussion in the assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15, it is established that

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)

capital gains of Rs. 36,05,27,391/- arising to the Appellant on sale of shares of "MJTLL" and "PSISL" are also bogus. The Assessing Officer in his concluding paragraph at page 25 of the assessment order has held as follows:- "In view of the considering details discussion in the assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15, it is established that

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)

capital gains of Rs. 36,05,27,391/- arising to the Appellant on sale of shares of "MJTLL" and "PSISL" are also bogus. The Assessing Officer in his concluding paragraph at page 25 of the assessment order has held as follows:- "In view of the considering details discussion in the assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15, it is established that

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, unexplained money

SOHAN SINGH GARCHA,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptac.O. No. 39/Chd/2012 (In Ita No. 973/Chd/2012) "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 Shri Sohan Lal Garcha, Vs. The Dcit, 901/2, Punjab Mata Natar, Circle Vi, बनाम Ludhiana Ludhiana

capital gains was challenged. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 20.11.2009 dismissed the first ground raised by the assessee relating to the validity of the assessment order being barred by limitation, observing as under:- “2.1 With regard to this ground of appeal Shri H.O. Arora, Advocate, the Id. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 625 & 626/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Dcit, Shri Tarun Jain, बनाम Central Circle-1, C/O M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Chandigarh Pvt Limited, Bhatinda "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpj2158H Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Ludhiana Dated 11.3.2018 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

money laundering'. The AO mentioned about same modus operandi followed by the two concerns namely M/s. Presha Metallurgical Ltd. and M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd. and concluded that both are penny stock concerns. The AO also mentioned about the penal action taken by Bombay Stock Exchange against these two concerns and their suspension due to Graded Surveillance Measure. The AO also