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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

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

245D(4) for the A.Y. 2004-05 to 2011-12 in the case of M/s BPSL and gave the following decision relating to income surrendered by the Assessee in the individual capacity: “19.5 It may be mentioned that Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt. Arti Singhal have in their individual hands made a declaration of Rs. 239,11,90,780/-. After

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

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

4) of the Act, therefore, clearly the impugned Long Term 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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

4) of the Act, therefore, clearly the impugned Long Term 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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

4) of the Act, therefore, clearly the impugned Long Term 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