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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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

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

4) of the Act at the time of search under section 132 of the Act dated 13th September 2012. 26. It was further observed by the AO that similar modus operandi was used in respect of the remaining 9 companies with respect of which the assessee has shown bogus long-term capital gain. The list of such companies

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)

132(1) were carried out at the residential and business premises of M/s Jain Amar Clothing Pvt. Ltd. Group of cases on 26/02/2016 and the assessee premises were also searched on the said date. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was centralized and notice under section 153(A) dt. 28/09/2016 was issued to the assessee. In response

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)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return

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)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return

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)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return

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)

4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income declaring total income of Rs. 6,77,053/- on 29/09/2012 and in the return of income so filed, the assessee has claimed exemption towards Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) under section 10(38) amounting to Rs. 87,04,733/-. The return

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

132(4) of Income Tax Act, that he is in the business of providing accommodation entries, o Statement by Sh. Manish Arora on oath that Sh. R.K. Kedia is in the business of providing accommodation entries, o Hand written cash receipt and payment account related to accommodation providing business of Sh. R.K. Kedia found and seized from the residence

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

132(4) of Income Tax Act, that he is in the business of providing accommodation entries, o Statement by Sh. Manish Arora on oath that Sh. R.K. Kedia is in the business of providing accommodation entries, o Hand written cash receipt and payment account related to accommodation providing business of Sh. R.K. Kedia found and seized from the residence

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

132(4) of Income Tax Act, that he is in the business of providing accommodation entries, o Statement by Sh. Manish Arora on oath that Sh. R.K. Kedia is in the business of providing accommodation entries, o Hand written cash receipt and payment account related to accommodation providing business of Sh. R.K. Kedia found and seized from the residence

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

132(4) of Income Tax Act, that he is in the business of providing accommodation entries, o Statement by Sh. Manish Arora on oath that Sh. R.K. Kedia is in the business of providing accommodation entries, o Hand written cash receipt and payment account related to accommodation providing business of Sh. R.K. Kedia found and seized from the residence