SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness of rise

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

D-Mat statement etc. and there is nothing to pinpoint anything against the assessees., High court held that where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and made additions under section 68 on ground that assessee invested in shares of penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG, since assessee failed to establish genuineness of rise

SMT. INDERMEET BAINS W/O SH. D.S. BAINS,BATHINDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in the term indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

d) The intention of the purchaser of the land is not for agriculture purpose but the same was to earn profit from sale of land as evident from the facts of the case. (e) The land was situated is developed area s nearby A irocity and Airport. (f) The land was purchased by the assessee and the same

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

d) By any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. The above said notice was served through the Notice Server of the Department which is one of the mean of transmission of documents as provided by the rules made by the Board. ii. The necessary satisfaction has also been recorded

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

d) By any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. The above said notice was served through the Notice Server of the Department which is one of the mean of transmission of documents as provided by the rules made by the Board. ii. The necessary satisfaction has also been recorded

MR RUDER MANI WALIA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 (3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

17-18. The ITR is verified and following entries were noticed. The relevant column in the ITR under the head “Schedule CG: Capital Gains : B-Long Term Capital Gains” at point 7a, 7b, and 7c, is as under: Full value of consideration Rs.47,40,561/- Less: Deduction u/s 48: Cost of acquisition without indexation Rs.42,99,363/- Long Term Capital

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. VIKAS MEHRA, THE MALL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed being devoid of

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

D. R. Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.08.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 11.08.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward 5(4), Amritsar passed

SMT. ZEENAB,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

D ITA No.433(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2008-09 Smt. Zeenab, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W/o Ghulam Mohammad Bhat Ward-3(3), Srinagar R/O House No, 15-16 Hig Colony Green Park, Bemina, Srinagar [PAN:ABGPZ 4507Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Bashir Ahmed Lone (Ld. CA) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR) Date of hearing: 11.04.2019 Date

ITO, WARD- 3(3), SRINAGAR vs. SMT. ZEENAB, BEMINA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the aforesaid reasons stated above

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

D ITA No.433(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2008-09 Smt. Zeenab, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W/o Ghulam Mohammad Bhat Ward-3(3), Srinagar R/O House No, 15-16 Hig Colony Green Park, Bemina, Srinagar [PAN:ABGPZ 4507Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Bashir Ahmed Lone (Ld. CA) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR) Date of hearing: 11.04.2019 Date

SH. AMRIT LAL BATRA, PROP.,SRINAGAR vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

5 by observing that it is remitting the matter with regard to the nature of the transaction concerning the sale and purchase of shares, and also set-aside the finding with regard to legal expenses and that also ought to be considered afresh. The Hon’ble High Court while set asiding the order of the Bench has observed that

SHRI AMRIT LAL BATRA,SRINAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-3, SRINAGAR

Appeals of the appellant are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

5 by observing that it is remitting the matter with regard to the nature of the transaction concerning the sale and purchase of shares, and also set-aside the finding with regard to legal expenses and that also ought to be considered afresh. The Hon’ble High Court while set asiding the order of the Bench has observed that

M/S STEP BY STEP JUNIOR SCHOOL SOCIETY,AMRITSAR. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

17. On the contrary, the learned D.R. for the revenue had submitted that Section 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act would only be applicable if the assessee is running the institution solely for the purpose of education. He had laid much emphasis on the word solely used in the statute. He had further submitted that the assessee was running various

MAX FINANCIAL SERVICE LIMITED ,NAWANSHAHR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

gains of business” as against “income from house property” and consequential claim of depredation under section 32 of the Act, being supported by various decisions of the High Courts could not have been termed as erroneous. 9. Without prejudice to the above, the PCIT failed to appreciate that business expenditure as claimed by the Appellant for the purposes of carrying

SHRI BRIJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

SHRI BARJINDERPAL SINGH BHULLAR,MOHALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

capital gain tax only when the same was so received, and not otherwise. Accordingly, the CIT(A) in terms of his aforesaid observations partly allowed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted

SMT. DEEPTI AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

D) NATURE OF TRANSACTION: The nature of transaction itself looks suspicious from the manner it has been conducted i.e. the abnormal appreciation in the value of shares, the mode of payment for purchase of shares not doing the transaction through the normal share dealing procedures. The assessee has shown to have received sale proceeds through cheque whereas purchases were consciously

SH.GAURAV AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

D) NATURE OF TRANSACTION: The nature of transaction itself looks suspicious from the manner it has been conducted i.e. the abnormal appreciation in the value of shares, the mode of payment for purchase of shares not doing the transaction through the normal share dealing procedures. The assessee has shown to have received sale proceeds through cheque whereas purchases were consciously

SH. RAMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL,GURDAS PUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

D) NATURE OF TRANSACTION: The nature of transaction itself looks suspicious from the manner it has been conducted i.e. the abnormal appreciation in the value of shares, the mode of payment for purchase of shares not doing the transaction through the normal share dealing procedures. The assessee has shown to have received sale proceeds through cheque whereas purchases were consciously