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

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

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

13 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO return of income. Therefore, I have reason to believe that Capital Gain arising from transfer of this land has escaped from being taxed.” Section 149(1)(b) of the Act states that no notice u/s 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year, if four years, but not more than six years

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

13,436/-. Thereafter, the assessee sold 03 residential plots on dated 16.05.2014 which were purchased through 03 separate registered deeds (one deed dated 28.12.2002 and two deeds dated 06.03.2003) and earned LTCG of Rs.1,02,20,670/-. The assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. 1961 on the strength of the investments made in purchasing

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

13 | P a g e assessmentwhich stood merged with CIT(Appeals)’s appellate order has attained finality so far as Revenue is concerned. In my considered view, the assessee has invested Rs.2,75,00,000/- in the capital of partnership firm Freedom Shoes LLP and said investment in capital of the partnership firm carries the interest @ 12% as claimed

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

13,61,600/- under the head "Capital Gain". In view of the facts discussed above & remand report furnished by the AO, the addition made of Rs.13,61,600/- on account of capital gain is confirmed.” 6. The first appeal was accordingly dismissed by the first appellate authority. 7. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition

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

13,61,600/- under the head "Capital Gain". In view of the facts discussed above & remand report furnished by the AO, the addition made of Rs.13,61,600/- on account of capital gain is confirmed.” 6. The first appeal was accordingly dismissed by the first appellate authority. 7. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition

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

section 144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering the details filed by assessee, dismissed assessee’s appeal. 5. Appellant assessee has approached this Tribunal in second appeal on the following grounds : “1. The learned CIT (A) has erroneously upheld an addition of Rs. 96,32,000/-(Rupees Ninety-six lac thirty-two thousand only) and computed the long

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

section 144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering the details filed by assessee, dismissed assessee’s appeal. 5. Appellant assessee has approached this Tribunal in second appeal on the following grounds : “1. The learned CIT (A) has erroneously upheld an addition of Rs. 96,32,000/-(Rupees Ninety-six lac thirty-two thousand only) and computed the long

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

section 144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering the details filed by assessee, dismissed assessee’s appeal. 5. Appellant assessee has approached this Tribunal in second appeal on the following grounds : “1. The learned CIT (A) has erroneously upheld an addition of Rs. 96,32,000/-(Rupees Ninety-six lac thirty-two thousand only) and computed the long

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

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

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 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, 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

BALDEV SINGH BHADORIYA,GWALIOR vs. ITO-3(2), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Smt Kiran Lata Bhadoria, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- L/H Of Late Shri Baldev 3(2), Singh Bhadoria, Gwalior Mig-20, Darpan Colony, 474005, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahopb3071D Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

13,900/-. During the year under consideration, the Assessee has shown income from salary received from Shatabdika Society, short-term capital gains, income from other sources and income from business and profession. During the year under consideration, the Assessee has purchased an agricultural land measuring 5.874 hectares situated at village Baretha, Patwari, Halka 101, Vikaskhand-Morar

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

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

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

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

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

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice