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

capital gain claimed by the assessee was for an amount of Rs.82,08,630/- claimed to be exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. On the sale of share in the hand of Shri Ramesh Chand Garg as all the shares were sold through recognized stock exchange paying STT and all the shares were held for a period of more

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

capital gain claimed by the assessee was for an amount of Rs.82,08,630/- claimed to be exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. On the sale of share in the hand of Shri Ramesh Chand Garg as all the shares were sold through recognized stock exchange paying STT and all the shares were held for a period of more

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

capital gain claimed by the assessee was for an amount of Rs.82,08,630/- claimed to be exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. On the sale of share in the hand of Shri Ramesh Chand Garg as all the shares were sold through recognized stock exchange paying STT and all the shares were held for a period of more

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

capital gains in his return of income filed in ITR-4S. 3. Based on the aforesaid facts, Ld. Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s. 148 of the Act after taking prior approval of the ld. PCIT as per provisions of section 151 of the Act. The statutory notice dated 31.03.2021 issued

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

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

142(1) and section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) were not answered by the appellant. Thereafter, a show- cause notice under section 144 was issued by the AO. on 16.11.2016 and on its non-service through the speed post, ITI was deputed to serve it personally on the appellant. Vide his report dated 06.12.2016, the ITI has reported that Shri

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

Section 2(42)A] by the assessee and therefore are not long term capital assets and consequently deduction u/s 54EC is not available to assessee. Total sale consideration from sale of 5 flats valuing at Rs. 36,00,000/- should be treated as business income and taxed accordingly. "Thus the receipt of Rs 36,00,000/- have escaped

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)

142) order dated 27/3/2019 wherein the Hon'ble after due consideration of the matter has held that the assessee cannot be saddled with the liability of interest prior to earning of income/gain. The AO was directed to work out the interest under section 234C from the date of accrual of capital gain

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)

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has declared income from salary of Rs.1,74,000/- and income from business of Rs.1,38,500/- against gross receipts of Rs.4,50,000/-. Besides above, the assessee has declared nil income from capital gains

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since the unsecured loans were utilized for making investment in the partnership firm from where income in the form of interest and remuneration was earned and offered for tax in the income-tax return. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

GOVARDHAN SINGH,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

142(1) of the Act and also filed the details of sale consideration of the immovable property sold. However, the transaction details, e.g., purchase/sale deed, supporting vouchers/ledgers, computation of income, calculation of capital gains on the sale of immovable property and details of the relevant bank statement, were not submitted before the revenue authorities. Learned Assessing Officer, accordingly treated

SURESH SINGH,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain and the benefit of indexed cost should be allowed.” 2. The assessee has filed an application for admission of additional grounds, which are as under : “1. Because the addition made by the Assessing Officer invoking provisions of Section 50C of the I.T Act and confirmed by Ld, CIT(A) is wrong, bad in law, unjustified and without jurisdiction

RAKESH DUBEY,KATRA MOHOLLA OLD BUS STAND ASHOKNAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NFAC DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

gain on the sale of the aforesaid property. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021, which stood un-responded. Thereafter, notices u/s. 142(1) were issued to the assessee on 08.02.2022 and 18.02.2022, which were served upon the assessee, but for no avail. The Assessing Officer further, vide notice

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

capital gains tax made by the A.O. at Rs. 17,38,000/- on the basis of stamp value under section 50C pending valuation report from the departmental valuer sought by A.O. is illegal and arbitrary.” 2. Apropos Ground No.2, according to the assessee, as is clear from the assessment order, no notice

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s response, Assessing Officer determined the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s response, Assessing Officer determined the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s response, Assessing Officer determined the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against

CHET RAM VERMA,ETAH vs. ITO WARD-3(1), ETAH

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain solely relying on the statement of the I.T.A No. 783/Agra/2018 3 persons who executed the power of attorney in the favour of the appellant. Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition has legally erred ignoring the fact that the statement cannot be relied upon and cannot be made basis of addition until and unless the opportunity of cross