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 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties regarding correctness of assessment of short-term capital gains

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)

143(3) read with section 147 and sustained/enhanced by the Learned JCIT(Appeals) is bad in law and void ab initio; all additions and enhancement so made/confirmed are liable to be deleted. 2. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the reopening under section 147 is illegal and without jurisdiction as there was no tangible material

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital receipt\nand completed the assessment u/s 143(3), vide order dated\n10.03.2021 wherein the addition of Rs.49,50,000/- was made as\ncapital gain in the hands of the assessee.\n5. Against such order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.\nCIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 22.05.2024 has dismissed the\nappeal of the assessee, thus

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

capital gain shall not be charged u/s 45 of the Act to the extent invested in such purchase / construction. But the above exemption shall not be available where the assessee owns more than one residential house, other than the newly purchased constructed one, on the date of transfer and the income from such residential house, other than the one residential

PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 143(1)(a)(i to vi) of the Act. The capital gain has to be computed u/s 48 r/w 50C of the Act. In the case

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 246A by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before us by 274 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition

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 153Ar.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case he(sic. The) learn CIT(A) erred o considering the fact that when that are no incineration(sic. Incriminating) document found during search, the Capital assessment need not be disbursed until item are specific audition(sic. addition) based on incineration(sic. incriminating

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

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

section 154. It was further submitted that had the grievance been resolved by CPC the appeal filed before CIT(A) could have been withdrawn. It was further submitted that it was not a case that the appeal filed 5 Surbhi Anand against the Intimation u/s 143(1) was absolutely barred in the scheme of Act. Thereafter

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 15.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before this tribunal by 101 days. Considering the reason adduced

BRIJESH PODDAR M/S KRISHAN KANHAIYA TEXTILES,HATHARS vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshri Brijesh Poddar (Prop), Vs. Ito, M/S. Krishna Kanhiya Ward-4(3)(4), Poddar Textile, Hanuman Hathras Gali, Hathras, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Azgpp1350B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

Section 143(1) of the Act on 30-12-2023 accepting the returned income. In the said return, the assessee had shown income under the head short-term capital gains

RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that no reference was made to the DVO under section 50C(2) of the Act, which has been held as mandatory in a previous case. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143

HARI CHANDRA YADAV,NAGLA VISHNU vs. ITO, FIROZABAD

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in\nabove terms

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3)\nof the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').\n2.\nHeard both the parties. Case file perused.\n3.\nIt emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned\nlower authorities have added long-term capital gains

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

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 the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w section

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

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 the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w section

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

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 the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w section

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

143(2) to specify that case is\nreopened for CASS/AIR information.\nMonetary ceiling for complete scrutiny is modified and two categories were\nmade for metro and non-metro& other cities. But more importantly CBDT in the\nsecond para mentioned that “The scope of enquiry should be limited to\nverification of these particular aspects only". Procedure is clearly mentioned for\nwidening

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