DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.” 23. Prior to substitution of sub section (1) of section 115BBE w.e.f. 14.2017, the section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, which reads as under

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case. 3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

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

3 and 4 raised by the assessee were not pressed before us and the same are therefore treated as dismissed. 7. Vis-à-vis the ground Nos. 1 and 5 ,the same it was pointed out, relate to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act on account of Long Term Capital Gains treated as bogus, amounting to Rs.17