JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

10 and 11 taken before him and holding that the appellant is engaged in commercial activities by virtue of section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, as amended from 01.04.2009. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is carrying on non commercial activities and enjoying registration u/s 12A. The provisions of section 2(15) cannot, legally

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

10[sub-section (1)] of section 49, there shall be included the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner referred to in the said section ; ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 46 11[(c) in the case of a capital asset being a share or shares in an Indian company, which becomes the property of the assessee

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

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

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

10[sub-section (1)] of section 49, there shall be included the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner referred to in the said section ; ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 46 11[(c) in the case of a capital asset being a share or shares in an Indian company, which becomes the property of the assessee

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

10[sub-section (1)] of section 49, there shall be included the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner referred to in the said section ; ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 46 11[(c) in the case of a capital asset being a share or shares in an Indian company, which becomes the property of the assessee

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

10[sub-section (1)] of section 49, there shall be included the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner referred to in the said section ; ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 46 11[(c) in the case of a capital asset being a share or shares in an Indian company, which becomes the property of the assessee

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

10[sub-section (1)] of section 49, there shall be included the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner referred to in the said section ; ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 46 11[(c) in the case of a capital asset being a share or shares in an Indian company, which becomes the property of the assessee

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)

10,000 Income from long-term capital gains - Rs. 99,677 Income from short-term capital gains - Rs.169,324 Income from other sources - Rs. 48,263 4. The assessee opted for new regime of taxation. As the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration did not exceed Rs. 7 lakhs, the assessee was eligible for tax rebate

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

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

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

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such a condition which

USHA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ITO 4(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

10 property on 02-12-2006 for Rsl.14,00,000/- whereas its valuation for the purpose of stamp duty was at Rs.17,40,000/-, thus taking into the value according to section 50-C of the Act, taking its purchase cost , the net capital gain does arise above the taxable limit prevailing in the year in question. From the record

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

15 along with front wall and entry gate at Emerland Garden, Gutaiya Scheme No. VII vide registered purchase deed dated 30.03.2012. The said plot was purchased by the assessee along with husband for a total consideration of Rs.2,89,39,690/-. The assessee had also pointed out a contractor for the purpose of construction of ground floor on turnkey basis

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

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

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)

section 207 to 211. Because the appellant craves leave to add, modified, subtract any grounds (ii) of appeal at the time hearing. In appeal memo appellant has submitted the condonation of delay in the 2.5 column no 15, which is reproduced here under: LT.A No. 54/AGR/2021 4 "THE APPELLANT EARNED INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS IN MARCH 2018 THEREFORE THE ADVANCE

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