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

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

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

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

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

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

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

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

PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

capital gains taxable under section 111A. The AR submitted that the decision rendered by the CIT(A) in that case is directly applicable to the present appeal, and that consistency in application of law must be maintained in favour of the assessee. 4.7 Additionally, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Chamber

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

ITO 1(2), GWALIOR vs. SMT REENA AGRAWAL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

gains arising on account of transfer of any long term capital asset. (ii). The assessee within the period of one year before had purchased a capital asset or (iii). The assessee within the period of two years from the date of transfer of the capital asset the assessee purchases new asset or (iv). Within a period of three years, after

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

RAGHUVENDRA KUMAR VARSHNEY,ALIGARH vs. I.T.O., WARD-1, ALIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Capital Gain shown by the appellant is arbitrary, wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case. 2.2 Because in any view, treating and computing the income during the relevant year by taking proceeds of all 15 Flats, against proceeds of 5 Flats belonging and shown by appellant (proceeds of 10 Flats belonging to the contractor) is grossly

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

ABHILASHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. JCIT RANGE-6 , JHANSI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains had been erroneously computed. According to the CIT (A), since this was agreed to by the AO, the assessee cannot grudge that if ultimately the income would get enhanced, still he ought to be heard. This, once more, is without any reasoning. The assessee had filed the rectification application seeking relief. It was not a self-inculpatory application

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