ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain of Rs.37,35,606/-, learned Assessing Officer allowed deduction to the extent of Rs.9,31,060/- (sale consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- plus Stamp Duty of Rs.81,060/-) pertaining to purchase of first new residential house property No. 19/180, Tila Ammeri Khan, Ghati Mamu Bhanja, Agra, treating it as a new residential house property, but disallowed the balance

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

Gains of Business and profession”, which the assessee sought to adjust/set off against income from house property and income from other sources. Thus, as against the returned income of Rs.5,17,690/-, the Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.49,62,488/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with the CIT(Appeals

SH. KULDEEP SRIVASTAVA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), MATHURA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head Short Term Capital Gain for an amount of Rs. 30,44,355/- earned by him of selling of land purchased by him in earlier year after getting its value improved due to flats constructed thereon. Therefore, I confirm the addition

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

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

income chargeable as ‘capital gains’ and remitting the matter to the file of ‘AO’ for verification of genuineness of purchase deed ignoring the fact that the purchase deed had been submitted as ‘additional

YOGENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain be determined. 2. The appellant craves leave to add amend any ground at the time or before hearing of appeal.” Ground No. 3 (Additional Legal Ground) "That the appellate order passed by the NFAC dated 30.03.2024 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

addition made by the Assessing Officer and enhancement made by learned CIT(Appeals), I observe that the assessee has filed his return of income by declaring the long term capital gains

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

addition made on account of differential Sanjana Gupta consideration under the head “Capital Gains” in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee filed her return of income

NITESH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), AGRA

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member Nitesh Agarwal Vs Income Tax 29/81, Lakshmi Palace, Officer-2(1) (3), Namakkimandi, Agra- Agra 282003 Pan No Abnpa2197G Appellant Respondent

addition of Rs. 36,00,000 /- towards Long Term Capital Gain is wrong and illegal s the assessee had duly shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.9,02,439 /- in Return of Income

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

income”. The AO treating the compensation as capital receipt\nand completed the assessment u/s 143(3), vide order dated\n10.03.2021 wherein the addition of Rs.49,50,000/- was made as\ncapital gain

SARITA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarmrs. Sarita Agrawal Acit Geeta Colony Aayakar Bhawan Dal Bazar, Gwalior- V. City Centre 474001 Gwalior-474001 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk3445P Appellant .. Respondent

capital gain on sale of shares ,and the income was claimed as exempt from income-tax. The assessee was asked by the AO to furnish complete details of purchase and sale of shares/mutual funds, but the assessee did not file any evidences nor filed any reply. The AO made addition

SURESH CHANDRA SADH,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE 4(1)(1),, ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

income through unexplained cash credit Us Sec. 68 of the Act., therefore in view of the facts and in the circumstances, it may be held accordingly. 3 the AO is wholly unjustified in treating the Long-term Capital Gain earned by the appellant as bogus accommodation entry without making his own investigation and without verifying the alleged entry operator

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

addition of Rs.13,61,600/- as income from long term capital gain, vide assessment order dated 29.09.2017 passed u/s. 144/147

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

addition of Rs.13,61,600/- as income from long term capital gain, vide assessment order dated 29.09.2017 passed u/s. 144/147

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

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-sale details

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

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-sale details

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

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-sale details

RENU GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. JCIT- RANGE -2, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

capital gains’ on account of sale of part of land at Banmore be not treated as her income from ‘business or profession. After considering the submissions of assessee, learned Assessing Officer made an addition

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

addition of the excess of the stamp duty value to the actual consideration received. (2) . The assessee was found to have been allowed claim of deduction /exemption of its capital gain u/s. 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.16,06,618/- without any proof / evidence of eligibility of the same. He noted no enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer with

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

addition of the excess of the stamp duty value to the actual consideration received. (2) . The assessee was found to have been allowed claim of deduction /exemption of its capital gain u/s. 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.16,06,618/- without any proof / evidence of eligibility of the same. He noted no enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer with