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)

capital gains, he observed that the assessee has filed a valuation report of the property at Rs.11,14,000/-. Same was reproduced in the appellate order from page 12 to page 15 of the order. Based on the above valuation, after giving notice to the assessee and after considering submissions of the assessee, learned CIT(Appeals) enhanced the additions made

AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

CAPITAL GAINS IN MARCH 2018 THEREFORE THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AROSE ONLY IN MARCH. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED ON 17 MAY 2019 CHARGING INTEREST US 234C.THE APPELLANT INSTEAD OF FILING APPEAL PREFER TO FILE RECTIFICATION REQUEST AT CPC ON 9 JUNE 2019. THE RECTIFICATION ORDER RECEIVED ON EMAIL ON 21 FEB 2020 SEEN ON 2/3/2020. THE APPEAL FILED IS DELAYED

GOVARDHAN SINGH,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gain, keeping inflation cost of index in view. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify such details and thereafter pass an order afresh in accordance with law. We order accordingly. Needless to say that learned Assessing Officer shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice

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

capital gains I.T.A No.440/Agra/2017 2 tax was chargeable in this case being 85% of net consideration invested in assets u/s 54B of the IT Act 1961. 2. Because the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the order passed by the AO u/s 144 of the IT Act 1961 was in order

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)

capital gain. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. The assessee shall be provided due and adequate opportunity of hearing to support his case. On his part, the assessee, no doubt, shall co-operate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). Ordered accordingly. 14. In the result for statistical purposes, the appeal

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)

capital gain. All pleas available under the law shall remain so available to the assessee. The assessee shall be provided due and adequate opportunity of hearing to support his case. On his part, the assessee, no doubt, shall co-operate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). Ordered accordingly. 14. In the result for statistical purposes, the appeal

SMT. INDIRA YADAV,JHANSI vs. ITO.,-2(3)(4), LALITPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2011-12

natural justice and the capital gain assessed at Rs. 1424488/- is excessive and arbitrary.” 2. The brief facts of the case

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 of Rs.9,02,439 /- in Return of Income filed which was filed electronically. BECAUSE, in any case and in any view of the matter impugned addition and impugned assessment order is bad in law, illegal, unjustified, contrary to facts and law based upon incorrect assumption of facts and further without allowing adequate opportunity of hearing in violation

PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

natural justice. According to the facts of the M/s. Visakha(supra) and the Ceylon(supra), no intimations/notices were issued at all to the concerned assesses before making an adjustment of Capital Gain

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

capital gain and without giving an opportunity to file rejoinder to the remand report sought from the Assessing Officer. 4 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 8. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for assessee and learned Sr. DR for revenue. 9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld. CIT(Appeals) sought for the remand report

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

capital gain and without giving an opportunity to file rejoinder to the remand report sought from the Assessing Officer. 4 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 8. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for assessee and learned Sr. DR for revenue. 9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the ld. CIT(Appeals) sought for the remand report

M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

natural justice to enable the assessee to file further objection, if required. 7. That without prejudice to the above mentioned submission and at the most if there is any information though neither the same has been mentioned in the reason recorded nor otherwise confronted with the assessee, the said information is clearly termed as borrowed satisfaction and until unless

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

natural justice to enable the assessee to file further objection, if required. 7. That without prejudice to the above mentioned submission and at the most if there is any information though neither the same has been mentioned in the reason recorded nor otherwise confronted with the assessee, the said information is clearly termed as borrowed satisfaction and until unless

FAHEEM PARVEZ,JHANSI vs. ITO -2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, for statistical purpose, appeals allowed

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

capital gain is arbitrary, against the facts and illegal. 10. That appellant craves to add or alter any other ground of appeal.” 2. Apropos ground no. 1, that ex-parte order passed contrary to the presence of appellant's counsel taken on record by C.I.T. (A) as per his order, is illegal and arbitrary. 3. At the outset

SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,MAURANIPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

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

capital gain without taking DVO’s valuation report and assessee’s objections to it into consideration ? 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 8. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) has not considered the valuation report submitted by the DVO and assessee’s objections in respect thereof filed on ITBA portal. Hence

SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JHANSI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

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

capital gain without taking DVO’s valuation report and assessee’s objections to it into consideration ? 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 8. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) has not considered the valuation report submitted by the DVO and assessee’s objections in respect thereof filed on ITBA portal. Hence

SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,MAURANIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHANSI

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

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

capital gain without taking DVO’s valuation report and assessee’s objections to it into consideration ? 3 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 8. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) has not considered the valuation report submitted by the DVO and assessee’s objections in respect thereof filed on ITBA portal. Hence

RAKESH DUBEY,KATRA MOHOLLA OLD BUS STAND ASHOKNAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NFAC DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain and Rs.14,15,500/- as deemed income of the assessee vide assessment order 24.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 4. Appellant/assessee has preferred this appeal apart from