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

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

transferred were not the part of the entities of Shri SCS. Therefore, there is no question of treating the sale of shares to other companies as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term

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

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

transferred were not the part of the entities of Shri SCS. Therefore, there is no question of treating the sale of shares to other companies as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term

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

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

transferred were not the part of the entities of Shri SCS. Therefore, there is no question of treating the sale of shares to other companies as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term

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

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

transferred were not the part of the entities of Shri SCS. Therefore, there is no question of treating the sale of shares to other companies as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term

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

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

transferred were not the part of the entities of Shri SCS. Therefore, there is no question of treating the sale of shares to other companies as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term

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

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

transferred were not the part of the entities of Shri SCS. Therefore, there is no question of treating the sale of shares to other companies as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term

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

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

transferred were not the part of the entities of Shri SCS. Therefore, there is no question of treating the sale of shares to other companies as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term

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

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

transferred were not the part of the entities of Shri SCS. Therefore, there is no question of treating the sale of shares to other companies as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term

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

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

transferred were not the part of the entities of Shri SCS. Therefore, there is no question of treating the sale of shares to other companies as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Once the transaction of selling shares to the companies other than 21 companies belonging to Shri SCS has to be accepted as genuine long-term

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

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

short period of time against their fundamentals and meager Financials. 4.4 The ld. CIT(A) further held that the appellant, alongwith his family members, had followed the above modus operandi consistently for various AYs by entering into transactions of penny stocks and earning huge Long Term Capital Gain, which were not genuine on the face itself; that the onus

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

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

short period of time against their fundamentals and meager Financials. 4.4 The ld. CIT(A) further held that the appellant, alongwith his family members, had followed the above modus operandi consistently for various AYs by entering into transactions of penny stocks and earning huge Long Term Capital Gain, which were not genuine on the face itself; that the onus

DESH MITTER GAIND,PANCHKULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA, HARYANA

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Order Of Cit(A) Bearing No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-

capital gains that has arisen to it on this immovable property during the F.Y. 2010-11 by taking sale price at Rs.2,42,00,000/-. The question is when long term gain or short term gain arises. It is on the date on which an asset (whether long term or short term) is transferred

ACIT, CIRCLE, SHIMLA vs. SHRI VINOD SHARMA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1449/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Vs. Shri Vinod Sharma, बनाम B-1/3, Circle, Safdarjang Enclave, Shimla New Delhi 110029 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abkps1560N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Ahninav Bazwaria, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

short 'the Act'). 3. The only issue on which the Department has filed this appeal is regarding the decision of the CIT(A) holding that the case under consideration is a construction of a house and not purchase of house though the said construction made by the Assessee is not regarding purchase of land or getting a house constructed

SH. ABHIMANYU SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sanjay Garg, Judicial, Member & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

Term capital gains of Rs. 80,85,577/- within 1.5 years of buying shares worth Rs. 2,72,000/- of a non descript company. The Assessing Officer was also of view that it was quite possible that the appellant had not purchased the shares of M/s Sharp Transport Ltd. as was claimed by the appellant, in 2008 and had fictitiously

ITO, W-6(5), MOHALI vs. SMT. GURDEV KAUR, KHARAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer would amount to a gift liable to tax under the Gift Tax Act, 1958, but if the construction of sub-section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer would amount to a gift liable to tax under the Gift Tax Act, 1958, but if the construction of sub-section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would

AJMER SINGH,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(5), MOHAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

transfer would amount to a gift liable to tax under the Gift Tax Act, 1958, but if the construction of sub-section (2) contended for on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, such difference would also be liable to be added as part of capital gains taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This would

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

term, in the price of the underlying shares. The Appellant did not have any kind or degree of relationship/ or control with/over the said companies, save as that of a passive investor, and neither was he involved in the management thereof at any point of time what to talk of its capital market operations or influencing to any degree