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)

68 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.2,34,34,280/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains

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)

68 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.2,34,34,280/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains

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)

68 and that as to whether the authorities below are justified in making addition of an amount of Rs.2,34,34,280/- under Section 69C of the Act, on account of alleged unaccounted commission paid by the assessee at the rate of 6.5% for the purpose of earning Long Term Capital Gains

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Long Term Capital Gain\namounting to Rs.1,04,06,769/- on sale of shares which was claimed as\nExempt Income under Section 10(38)of the Act.\n2.8 That after examining the information and written submissions\nfurnished from time to time, taking into consideration the sworn\nstatements, the assessment is completed as under:-\nIncome as returned by the Assessee\nUnexplained

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.18,31,36,042/- are sham transactions, not requiring to be added back either under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, as held by the ld. CIT(A), or under Section 68

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

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

Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.18,31,36,042/- are sham transactions, not requiring to be added back either under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, as held by the ld. CIT(A), or under Section 68

TARUN JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

long term capital gain is against the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 4 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after

SHRI SANJAY JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

long term capital gain is against the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 4 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after

RAJNI JAIN,BATHINDA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

long term capital gain is against the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 4 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana has failed to consider the fact that the assessment was made under section 143(3) of the Act by the AO after

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

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

long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show

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

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

long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show

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

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

long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show

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

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

long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show

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

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

long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show

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

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

long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show

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

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

long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show

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

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

long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show

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

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

long-term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 30. In response to such show