SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

164(2) of the Act, where the whole or any part of the relevant income is not exempt under section 11 or section 12 of the Act by virtue of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or section 13(1 )(d) of the Act, tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of relevant income

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

164(2) of the Act, where the whole or any part of the relevant income is not exempt under section 11 or section 12 of the Act by virtue of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or section 13(1 )(d) of the Act, tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of relevant income

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

164(2) of the Act, where the whole or any part of the relevant income is not exempt under section 11 or section 12 of the Act by virtue of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or section 13(1 )(d) of the Act, tax shall be charged on the relevant income or part of relevant income

SMT. TEENA GARG,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

164\ntaxamnn.com 505(SC) and emphasis was laid on following extract:\n\nINCOME TAX: SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where\nAssessing Officer computed capital gain on sale of an asset by\nraising queries and after considering submissions of assessee, PCIT\nwas not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 by\ntreating assessment order as erroneous.\n\nReliance

BHUPINDER SINGH SON OF SH. GURMUKH SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDIGARH-1, C.R BUILDING HIMALAYA MARG, SECTOR 17-E, CHANDIGARH, PUNJAB

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

bogus documents to create cash in hand. 10. That due to service of notice to the previous counsel of the assessee, the same was not received by the assessee. Further, due to old age and medical record of the assessee, the assessee could not file the timely reply to the notice(s) issued u/s 263 of the Act. The copy

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

bogus long-term capital gains from the sale of listed securities of paper companies. 4.8 During the year under consideration, the assessee sold shares of “Meenakshi Enterprises” between 14.10.2016 and 10.03.2017, which had been purchased during the financial year 2013–14. The assessee claimed the resultant long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 7,91,34,944/- arising from

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

bogus long-term capital gains from the sale of listed securities of paper companies. 4.8 During the year under consideration, the assessee sold shares of “Meenakshi Enterprises” between 14.10.2016 and 10.03.2017, which had been purchased during the financial year 2013–14. The assessee claimed the resultant long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 7,91,34,944/- arising from

M/S COTTON CARE EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ADDL. CIT, LUDHIANA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 490/Chd/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 M/S Cotton Care Exports Pvt. Ltd., The Addl Cit, Range-Iii, बनाम 2,Bal Singh Nagar, Rahon Road, Ludhiana Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcc4099H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 142(2A) being beyond the period of limitation u/s 153. 2. That the action for sustaining the addition for Rs. 7623/- is being challenged on fact and law. 3. That the action for sustaining the addition for Rs. 1,50,000/- and depreciation thereon for Rs. 46,164/- is being challenged on facts and law and quantum of addition

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

bogus long-term capital gains from the\nsale of listed securities of paper companies.\n4.8 During the year under consideration, the assessee sold shares of\n\"Meenakshi Enterprises” between 14.10.2016 and 10.03.2017, which had been\npurchased during the financial year 2013–14. The assessee claimed the\nresultant long-term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.7,91,34,944/- arising from

SANDHYA GOEL H.NO.101217, HUDA, JAGADHRI,HARYANA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANCHKULA, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

bogus contract notes. In other words, the purchase of shares by you was not genuine. However, the AO has completed the assessment by accepting the returned income without bringing on record any document from which it was verified that the shares of INDUSIND Bank had been genuinely purchased by you through stock exchange, or that you had actually made

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various case laws regarding this duly considered but not accepted because assessee has failed to prove that the amounts paid to specified persons are reasonable and should be allowed u/s 13 (2) of I.T.Act,1961. All these persons are not getting genuine and reasonable salary

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various case laws regarding this duly considered but not accepted because assessee has failed to prove that the amounts paid to specified persons are reasonable and should be allowed u/s 13 (2) of I.T.Act,1961. All these persons are not getting genuine and reasonable salary

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various case laws regarding this duly considered but not accepted because assessee has failed to prove that the amounts paid to specified persons are reasonable and should be allowed u/s 13 (2) of I.T.Act,1961. All these persons are not getting genuine and reasonable salary

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various case laws regarding this duly considered but not accepted because assessee has failed to prove that the amounts paid to specified persons are reasonable and should be allowed u/s 13 (2) of I.T.Act,1961. All these persons are not getting genuine and reasonable salary

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various case laws regarding this duly considered but not accepted because assessee has failed to prove that the amounts paid to specified persons are reasonable and should be allowed u/s 13 (2) of I.T.Act,1961. All these persons are not getting genuine and reasonable salary

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various case laws regarding this duly considered but not accepted because assessee has failed to prove that the amounts paid to specified persons are reasonable and should be allowed u/s 13 (2) of I.T.Act,1961. All these persons are not getting genuine and reasonable salary

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various case laws regarding this duly considered but not accepted because assessee has failed to prove that the amounts paid to specified persons are reasonable and should be allowed u/s 13 (2) of I.T.Act,1961. All these persons are not getting genuine and reasonable salary

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

164 (2) of I. T. Act. 4.3 Assessee's reply regarding section 13 (2) and various case laws regarding this duly considered but not accepted because assessee has failed to prove that the amounts paid to specified persons are reasonable and should be allowed u/s 13 (2) of I.T.Act,1961. All these persons are not getting genuine and reasonable salary