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

3- BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the appellant denies its liability in terms of Notice dated 31/03/2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as the notice issued under section 148 is barred by limitation given in section 149 of the Act. Since there was no escapement of any income chargeable

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": [ "10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "96 of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation And Re-Settlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act)", "105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013", "3A of NHAI Act, 1956", "194LA of the Income Tax Act, 1961" ], "issues": "Whether compensation received

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

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

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

3) did not indicate as to how capital gains arise in the case of assessee and the AO merely accepted truth in vague information in a mechanical manner and put the assessee under obligation to file reply to the same. Merely because no reply was filed, the AO acted in haste and initiated proceedings

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 95,20,372 under section 68 of the Act, 1961 whereas in the appellant case section 68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made, computing the long term capital gain by the AO, sustained by the NFAC is liable to be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year ,on 02.08.2017 , declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Return was processed

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)

3,00,000/- case the enhancement of by the Learned JCIT(Appeals) by taking the difference between 28,40,000/- (as adopted by the AO) and the value as estimated by the Appellant's private engineer/valuer is erroneous, contrary to law and facts, and beyond jurisdiction. The enhancement is founded on a private estimate which cannot substitute statutory valuation; further

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

3) of the I.T. Act dated 18.12.2017 is hereby cancelled with the directions to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after examining the issues as discussed above and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee contended that Assessing

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

Section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved ,the assessee filed first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued as many as 11 notices during the course of appellate proceedings, but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision in W.P.No.13353 of 2024 dated 24.07.2024 [Sri Venkataramana Reddy Patloola (supra

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

10,06,265/- has arisen from set off of interest paid on loans raised by the assessee from ICICI Bank and private parties to be set off against the income from remuneration from the partnership firm Freedom Shoes LLP and interest income from capital invested in partnership firm Freedom Shoes, LLP. The income from interest earned on capital invested

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

GAYATRI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1)(5), AGRA

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

10,000 per bigha. This action of the Learned\nAO was upheld by the Learned NFAC.\n4.\nBefore me, the Learned AR submitted that the Learned NFAC had indeed\naccepted the purchase cost of land as on 1-4-1981 at Rs 50,000 per bigha in\nthe hands of Shri Peetam Singh (co-owner of the same property

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

3 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 assessee also filed additional evidences in the form of copy of purchase/sale deeds of the properties etc. Ld. CIT(Appeals) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and after considering the same, dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing in para 5.3 as under : “5.3. 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

3 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 assessee also filed additional evidences in the form of copy of purchase/sale deeds of the properties etc. Ld. CIT(Appeals) called for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and after considering the same, dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing in para 5.3 as under : “5.3. The remand report