SH. AMAR SINGH,JAGADHARI vs. ITO, YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, both the appeal of different assessees are allowed

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

bogus, sham or manipulated the assessee could not be subjected to capital gains tax on the transfer of the plots in question although this decision of the High Court relates, to a very important legal issue, the answer to which is highly controversial and ordinarily a reference over this question should have been made, no such reference can be made

M/S BRONZE LOGISTICS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Bronze Logistics P.Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 863 Industrial Area-A, Circle Vii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan No. : Aabcb9505H

bogus purchase is not sustainable and accordingly the same is deleted.” 6.2.1 Referring the aforesaid findings it was submitted that in effect the addition was found by the ITAT having been made on assumptions and thus, stood deleted. 6.3 In the facts of the present case also it was submitted this would apply ipso-facto. Referring to the order

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

transferred to the\nbeneficiaries at a very nominal price mostly off line through preferential\nallotment or offline sale to save STT.\n2.12 The beneficiary individuals were made to hold the shares for a\nminimum period of one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is\nexempt under the provisions of Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961.\n2.13

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

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

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

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

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

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

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

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

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

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

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

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), accommodation entries in the case of individuals of BPSL group and One Time accommodation (OT) towards share capital /share premium in the case of group concerns were obtained which suggested that BPSL Group had been continuously involved in introducing its unaccounted income in garb of LTCG, OT etc. The AO pointed out that during

M/S ADARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S HIND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS CONTRCTORS,SANGRUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S GANGA CONSTRUCTIONS,SANGURUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S HIMALYAN CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERS,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S AMAR CONTRUCTION AND ENGINEER ,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S CHENAB CONSTRUCTION,SANGRUR vs. PCIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S AMBEY ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S ANAND ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SANGURUR vs. PR.CIT, PATIALA

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries

M/S OMKAR ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,SANGRUR vs. PCTI, PATIALA

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

purchases, creditors, debtors, expenses etc. and had also failed to provide copies of bills pertaining to work done for the year under consideration. It was further noted by the AO that the perusal of bank account statement of the assessee firm revealed that most of the credit receipts were withdrawn in cash and were allegedly converted into accommodation entries