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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals

SIKANDER SINGH MALUKA,MOHALI vs. ITO, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe I.T.O., Vs. Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Ward 5(1), # 1370, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N & Sh.Sikandar Singh Maluka, Vs. The I.T.O., # 1370, Sector 40-B, Ward 5(2), Chandigarh. Chandigarh Pan: Abzpm7206N

capital gain has escaped assessment as the particulars furnished in the return of income were not available to the then Assessing Officer. On receipt of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 24- 12-12010, the assessee submitted return on 15-01-2010 vide acknowledgment No. 418150110004669 and informed as per letter dated 21-01-2011 explaining the rationale

SH. SATPAL GOSAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that a housing society consisting of 95 present and ex MLAs of Punjab Legislative Assembly, was the owner of 21.02 acre land in village Kansal district Ludhiana. The said housing society of 2 A.Y.2007-08 the MLAs, named as the Punjab Cooperative Housing Buildings Society Ltd., had entered into a tripartite joint development agreement with

DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. TAJINDER SINGH, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptathe D.C.I.T., Vs. Sh.Tajinder Singh, Circle-6, 1021-Basant City, Part-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Addps7027D (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessed u/s 147 of the Act assessing the capital gain at Rs.1,68,01,607/- (wrongly mentioned as Rs.1,69,65,484/- in the CIT(A) order

M/S BLUE COAST INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT P. LTD.,SOLAN vs. DCIT, PARWANOO

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 652/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Development P. Ltd., 7, Income Tax, Circle, बनाम Shopping Complex, Sector-1, Parwanoo Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, H.P.

capital gains Tax. The Assessing Officer, without having met with the reply and explanations given by the assessee and even not mentioning a word about reports thereof of the concerned officers, proceeded to reopen the assessment on the same premise. The Assessing Officer, fully knowing that if he will rely upon those proceedings, he will have to meet and discard

ANJULA GOEL ,PARWANOO vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Capital Gains allegedly relating to the assessee had already stood disclosed and taxed in the hands of M/s Rohit Traders and, therefore, the same could not be taxed again in the hands of the assessee. 12. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stating that the Hon’ble Settlement commission

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)

capital gains on shares which have been duly offered in the original return of income and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT-III Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has not been appreciated and considered properly by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore in absence of any incriminating evidence found during the course of search

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)

capital gains on shares which have been duly offered in the original return of income and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT-III Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has not been appreciated and considered properly by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore in absence of any incriminating evidence found during the course of search

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)

capital gains on shares which have been duly offered in the original return of income and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT-III Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has not been appreciated and considered properly by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore in absence of any incriminating evidence found during the course of search

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)

capital gains on shares which have been duly offered in the original return of income and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT-III Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has not been appreciated and considered properly by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore in absence of any incriminating evidence found during the course of search

SH. BIPAN 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)

capital gains on shares which have been duly offered in the original return of income and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT-III Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has not been appreciated and considered properly by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore in absence of any incriminating evidence found during the course of search

SHRI MOHAN LAL GUPTA,SHIMLA vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment order so passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, the AO brought to tax capital gains