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

section 50C and the same is reproduced as under: - Name of the Amount of Stamp Amount Sale Proportionate vendee total sale registration considered amount stamp value consideration value for received for assesse computing by the capital gain assesse 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sanjeev Kumar 20,30,000 18,25

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

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

10. As is well settled, the reasons recorded are to be considered ipso facto, as they are, without supplementing them, without bolstering them. “CIT Vs. Samraj Krishan Chaudhary”, 368 ITR 638 (All) handed down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, amongst a plethora or other decisions, is eloquent on the issue. 11. The ld. CIT(A) as well

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

25,88,608/- (Rs. 30,10,778/- - 4 | P a g e Rs. 4,22,170/-) . Since, the assessee has reported loss under the head capital gains to the tune of Rs. 7,60,778/- , the AO made additions to the tune of Rs. 45,44,511/- to the income of the assessee under the head ‘capital gains’ , and loss

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

SAVITA GUPTA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(3)(1), ETAH

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

gains amounting to Rs.71,25,807/- after noticing difference between the assessee’s actual sale price of Rs. 75 lakhs as against the circle rate of the capital asset to the tune of Rs. 80 lakhs; respectively. 4. Faced with this situation, we invited the Revenue’s attention to section 50C (1) 3rd proviso envisaging such a tolerance margin

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

25%) as there are four co-owners of the said land. The assessee had purchased the said land at Kota, Rajasthan in 2013-14 , and short term capital gain earned by the assessee was to the tune of Rs.4,59,065/-. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said short term capital gain was not declared by the assesseein

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

25%) as there are four co-owners of the said land. The assessee had purchased the said land at Kota, Rajasthan in 2013-14 , and short term capital gain earned by the assessee was to the tune of Rs.4,59,065/-. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said short term capital gain was not declared by the assesseein

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

25%) as there are four co-owners of the said land. The assessee had purchased the said land at Kota, Rajasthan in 2013-14 , and short term capital gain earned by the assessee was to the tune of Rs.4,59,065/-. The assessee submitted before the AO that the said short term capital gain was not declared by the assesseein

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

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

10. BECAUSE, assessee denies its liability against Interest charged under section 234A &234B is incorrectly charged.” 3. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2 | P a g e 4. It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have made section 69A addition

GUMAN SINGH KUSHWAH,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

10-12-2021 and 11-1-2022 to furnish the requisite reply. Since there was no response from the side of the assessee, the assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act by the Learned AO. In the reassessment order, the Learned AO noted that assessee had purchased plot for Rs 71 lakhs during

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

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

25,00,000 A. Y. 2022-23 - Rs.25,00,000 Total - Rs. 1,47,44,000 Thus, out of the Interest received on maturity of Rs. 2,40,40,000 during the year (on which TDS has been deducted u/s 193 of the I.T. Act, 1961) the income relatable to the year under consideration of Rs. 92,96,000, declared

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

10(23C), 12A or 80G of the Act in Form No. 10AB, for which the last date for filing falls on or before 29th Sept., 2022, may be filed on or before 30th Sept., 2022. 16. Thus, in the Circular No. 8 of 2022 dt. 31st March, 2022, cited above, there is mention about

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

10(23C), 12A or 80G of the Act in Form No. 10AB, for which the last date for filing falls on or before 29th Sept., 2022, may be filed on or before 30th Sept., 2022. 16. Thus, in the Circular No. 8 of 2022 dt. 31st March, 2022, cited above, there is mention about

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

GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

capital gains, arising out of sale of properties to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The only issue under dispute during the assessment year was with respect to the outstanding trade payable liability of Rs.34,45,60,149/- in respect of 119 parties out 257 sundry creditors. It appears from the perusal of assessment order and the impugned first appellate