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

deduction on account of long-term capital gain or Shri Ramesh Chandra Garg was entitled to the long-term capital

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

deduction on account of long-term capital gain or Shri Ramesh Chandra Garg was entitled to the long-term capital

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

deduction on account of long-term capital gain or Shri Ramesh Chandra Garg was entitled to the long-term capital

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 gains. Admittedly, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of capital gains arising from

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)

deduction from the amount of income-tax, without any exclusion of income taxable under section 111A. In contrast, section 112A(6) specifically provides that rebate under section 87A shall not be allowed in respect of long-term capital gains

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

deducted the cost of construction along with land computed by him for seven flats at Rs.1,00,67,743/- out of the total sale value of Rs.1,82,44,500/- and arrived to short term capital gain

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 is a change of opinion. Further, the claim of deduction u/s 54EC of investment in Capital Gain Bond

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

capital gains of Rs. 9995501/- u/s 54 F, it was submitted that investment in land which is an integral and vital part of construction of a residential house qualifies for exemption u/s.54F and reliance on the following Judgments including the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional M.P. High Court was placed : a. Smt. Shashi Verma

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, which is required to be deducted while computing of capital gain, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities

GURDEEP SINGH,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1,, AGRA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmagurdeep Singh Vs. The Pr. Cit-1 33, Laxmi Nagar, Sikandra, Agra Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282007 Pan No. Aflps 7500 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Verma, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surendra Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2023

capital gain shown in computation of income. Deduction claimed under the Capital Gain: The asseseee has shown in computation 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

capital gain has not allowed the deduction of cost of the\nasset, which, as per law, is liable to be allowed

BRIJESH PODDAR M/S KRISHAN KANHAIYA TEXTILES,HATHARS vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshri Brijesh Poddar (Prop), Vs. Ito, M/S. Krishna Kanhiya Ward-4(3)(4), Poddar Textile, Hanuman Hathras Gali, Hathras, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Azgpp1350B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

deduction while computing the short-term capital gains. The assessee actually claimed deduction on account of interest expenditure on loan

SHRI BASANT MAKHIJA,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-I, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeals and Cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2008-09

capital gain received from transfer of agriculture land to the farmers only. But according to Development agreement and registered deed which was signed by assessee holding the power of attorney on behalf of original seller Mr. Bajandas Kashinath Bankar this land has commercial and capitalistic nature/intentions and misuse of this section which is wholly and exclusively for the relief/benefit

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

Capital Gain’ assessee is entitled to deduction of Rs.26,97,383/ - being the indexed cost of acquisition of the asset

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

deduction against incomeincome earned by the assessee cannot be allowed as per AO because of the fact that the genuineness of the interest expenses claimed are not established. 3.2 The Assessing Officer further disallowed loss of Rs.10,06,265/- claimed by the assessee under the head “ Profits and Gains of Business and profession”, which the assessee sought to adjust/set

HARI SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes treated as

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

deduction u/s 54B of the Act of I.T.A No.440/Agra/2017 3 Rs.1,70,000/- in lieu of investment made in the agricultural land out of a long term capital gain

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

deduction on account of expenditure to the extent of 50% of the gross receipts whereas the claim as made was allowable in full. In any case only as an alternative submission the disallowance sustained was on the higher side”. 5. The facts are that the AO, in the assessment order, added certain credit entries appearing in the assessee’s bank

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

deduction on account of expenditure to the extent of 50% of the gross receipts whereas the claim as made was allowable in full. In any case only as an alternative submission the disallowance sustained was on the higher side”. 5. The facts are that the AO, in the assessment order, added certain credit entries appearing in the assessee’s bank