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

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

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

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

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of Rs.\n28,75,041/- and that it is exempt under section 10 and not liable to\ntax but on perusal of return column D-19, it is blank where assessee is\nrequired to show 'exempt income'. Accordingly the assessee was\ncalled explain as to why entire receipt for Rs.29,38,945/- should not\nbe treated as unexplained

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

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

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

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

capital gains of Rs. 27,12,80,838/- arising to the Appellant on sale of shares of "MeenaKshi Enterprises", Shantanu Sheorey and M/s Sunstar Realty Development Ltd are also bogus. There are various sworn statements of entry operators duly supported by corroborative evidences which establish that the fact that the assessee received huge investment amounts of receipts in the garb

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

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

capital gains of Rs. 27,12,80,838/- arising to the Appellant on sale of shares of "MeenaKshi Enterprises", Shantanu Sheorey and M/s Sunstar Realty Development Ltd are also bogus. There are various sworn statements of entry operators duly supported by corroborative evidences which establish that the fact that the assessee received huge investment amounts of receipts in the garb

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 gains, nor as it income from "other sources" because the provisions of section 69, 69A, 69B and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money

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)

gain in F.Y. 2012-13.  That there is no incriminating material which was found during the course of search in case of the assessee with respect to the LTCG claimed. 3.8 Regarding first four points raised by the assessee, the AO did not dispute the same and stated that the same is a matter of fact. However

SH. AKHIL 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)

gain in F.Y. 2012-13.  That there is no incriminating material which was found during the course of search in case of the assessee with respect to the LTCG claimed. 4.8 Regarding first four points raised by the assessee, the AO did not dispute the same and stated that the same is a matter of fact. However

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)

gain in F.Y. 2012-13.  That there is no incriminating material which was found during the course of search in case of the assessee with respect to the LTCG claimed. 4.8 Regarding first four points raised by the assessee, the AO did not dispute the same and stated that the same is a matter of fact. However