A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

term capital gain; and (ii) shares have been sold through recognized Stock Exchange after paying "STT" on their sale or bringing on record any material to support the suspicion. 11. In addition to above, in subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y.s 2006-07 and onwards, even exemption allowable U/s 10(34) of the Act for any income by way of dividend

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

term capital gain; and (ii) shares have been sold through recognized Stock Exchange after paying "STT" on their sale or bringing on record any material to support the suspicion. 11. In addition to above, in subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y.s 2006-07 and onwards, even exemption allowable U/s 10(34) of the Act for any income by way of dividend

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

term capital gain; and (ii) shares have been sold through recognized Stock Exchange after paying "STT" on their sale or bringing on record any material to support the suspicion. 11. In addition to above, in subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y.s 2006-07 and onwards, even exemption allowable U/s 10(34) of the Act for any income by way of dividend

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

short], dated 25/09/2018 for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: “1. Because on due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, learned ‘CIT (Appeals)’ has erred in upholding the validity notice dated M.03.2016 issued under section 148 of the ‘Act’. Page 1 of 23 Tej Singh

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

short term capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

short term capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

short term capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

short). 2. Brief facts of the case are that assesse is an individual and filed his return of income on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.18,35,16,990/- which was revised on 31.10.2015 at the same income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the long term capital gain earned during under appeal. The assessee has sold

ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

short). 2. Brief facts of the case are that assesse is an individual and filed his return of income on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.18,35,16,990/- which was revised on 31.10.2015 at the same income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the long term capital gain earned during under appeal. The assessee has sold

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

short] dated 16/05/2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 246A by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before