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

loss on sales of shares were attached as per Annexure - "D". It may be submitted that the entire profit arising to the AOP and therefore to Shri Ramesh Chand Garg is non taxable u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, as al! the share were sold through the recognized stock exchange after paying Securities transaction tax and all the shares

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

loss on sales of shares were attached as per Annexure - "D". It may be submitted that the entire profit arising to the AOP and therefore to Shri Ramesh Chand Garg is non taxable u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, as al! the share were sold through the recognized stock exchange after paying Securities transaction tax and all the shares

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

loss on sales of shares were attached as per Annexure - "D". It may be submitted that the entire profit arising to the AOP and therefore to Shri Ramesh Chand Garg is non taxable u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, as al! the share were sold through the recognized stock exchange after paying Securities transaction tax and all the shares

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

gain. Also verification of properties sale transaction was\nalso the issue. Still this bench did not allow crossing the limit without obtaining\nprior permission.\nd) Sukhdham Infrastructure LLP v. Income Tax Officer (2024) 165\nTaxmann.com 154 (Kolkata Trib.)\nIssue:-There were four issues to verify (i) Interest Expenses (ii) Income from\nreal Estate Business (iii) Sales Turnover Mismatch

RUBY JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

carried out in secondary market had been duly subjected to Securities Transaction Tax (STT). i. The assessee furnished the complete contract notes statement for both purchase and sale together with the bank statement evidencing the payment for purchase and sale of shares before the ld AO. 4. The ld AO merely placed reliance on the Kolkata Investigation Wing Report, which

M/S CHATTA SUGAR CO. LTD,MATHURA vs. A.C.I..T CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

gains under Case I of Schedule D". 5.3 Thus, when subsidy is received from a public fund and these are to assist the assessee to carry on or business, the object of subsidy is apparent i.e. to enable the assessee to run business more profitably, become more competitive etc. These are operational subsidies and not capital subsidies. The source from

ITO 1(1)(1)(5), AGRA vs. SHANTI CONSTRUCTIONS , AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaincome Tax Officer, Ward,1(1)(5), Vs.. M/S Shanti Constructions, Ug-13, Aayakar Bhawan, Agra Shanti Madhuvan Plaza, Delhi Gate, Agra (Appellant) (Pan: Aaufs3185N) (Respondent)

carrying on the business of builders and promoters under the name and style of M/S Shanti Constructions, Agra. b) That the assessee had voluntarily filed its return of income relevant to A.Y.2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.1,12,120 against which the assessment was completed on total income of Rs.3,79,05,714 in ex-parte manner by ignoring

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

carry out those functions which would otherwise be carried out by the State Govt. Appellant finds support in the Ruling of Honourable Supreme Court . (6.1) That functions and duties of a Development Authority was defined by the honorable Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. R.C.Jain AIR 1981 SC 951 wherein it was held: “ They must be entrusted by statute