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

10. Based on the aforesaid grounds, the following points are to be determined : (i) Whether the proceedings initiated u/s. 147 and notice issued u/s. 148 are invalid, being barred by limitation, having been based on mechanical approval by competent authority and without proper service of notice u/s. 148 in terms of section

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

15,234 Cost of compounding GK1/222 Rs. 5,82,352 Cost of construction GK1/222 Rs. 62,70,000 Cost of land GK1/222 Rs. 58,02,500 Rs. 1,26,70,086/- Therefore, I find that the AO is not justified estimating the cost of construction on the basis of a rate provided by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, when the actual

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

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

capital gains tax and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had Page 19 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, the notice was issued after four years but before six years. In our opinion, the reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer was not sufficient to intiate proceedings under

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)

15,62,500/- in the bank account is arbitrary and unsustainable. The Appellant had duly explained the source of cash 4 | P a g e deposits with supporting cash flow/records; the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation on erroneous presumptions without bringing any cogent material on record. 7. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the addition

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

10 | P a g e Rs.10,40,000/- from the said partnership firm, M/s Freedom Shoes, LLP wherein the assessee is having 25% share in the said firm. The assessee also derived interest income of Rs.30,37,400/- from the said partnership firm Freedom Shoes, LLP on capital invested in the said firm. It is well settled that the remuneration

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 gains is exempt from income-tax u/s 10(38). The assessee did not filed complete details before the AO, which led to additions been made in the hands of the assessee by the AO to the tune of Rs. 1,15,995/- as income from other sources. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). We have observed

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

15,90,061/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. f. HPC Biosciences Ltd is a scrip listed on Bombay stock Exchange (BSE). g. The shares were sold by the assessee in secondary market, through a stock broker duly registered with SEBI in the recognised stock exchange. h. The sale transaction carried out in secondary

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

capital gain on sale of land in Profit and loss account, but no enquiry was made 9 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 by the Assessing Officer with respect to the same nor were deeds of purchase and sale of the land available on record. The assessee was also noted to have sold a portion of “Land TIBCO

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

capital gain on sale of land in Profit and loss account, but no enquiry was made 9 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 by the Assessing Officer with respect to the same nor were deeds of purchase and sale of the land available on record. The assessee was also noted to have sold a portion of “Land TIBCO

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

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, statement

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

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, statement

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

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, statement

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

SHARAD MAHESHWARI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR (M. P.), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sharad Maheshwari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W-63, 3Rd Floor, Ward-3(2), Greater Kailash-2, Gwalior South Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

10,94,000/- received from Smt Shashi Bansal as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act for not proving the creditworthiness of the donor. 5. With regard to gift received from Smt Manju Agarwal, sister of the assessee in the sum of Rs 6,25,000/-, the assessee submitted that the said amount was transferred by Smt Manju

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI ,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXTEMPTION) , BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the CIT (Exemption) Bhopal Act. Ld. CIT(E) found that provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act was granted to the assessee on 15.01.2022 for AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. Assessee was required to apply in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act within six months from

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 80G(5)(iv)(B) of the CIT (Exemption) Bhopal Act. Ld. CIT(E) found that provisional registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act was granted to the assessee on 15.01.2022 for AY 2022-23 to 2024-25. Assessee was required to apply in form 10AB u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act within six months from

SHRI ACHLESHWAR MAHADEVJI JI SARVJANIK NIYAS,GWALIOR vs. CIT(E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2025-26 Shri Achleshwar Mahadev Ji V Cit (Exemption) Sarvajanik Nyas, Sanatan Bhopal Dharm Mandir Road Gwalior- 474 001 Pan : Aahts1225J (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gains which have not accrued or arisen to him. It would indeed be most harsh and inequitable to tax the assessee on income which has neither arisen to him nor is received by him. merely because he has carried out the contractual obligation undertaken by him. It is difficult to conceive of any rational reason why the Legislature should