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 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

2)(b) of 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

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

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)

2 | P a g e Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has declared Rs.4,50,000/- as gross business receipts. Accordingly, he added the difference of Rs.3,07,400/- to the total income of the assessee. Further, he determined the short term capital gains of Rs.2,32,800/- and observed that the capital gain declared by the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2. The RFCTLARR Act which came in to effect from 1st January, 2014, in\nsection 96, inter-alia, provides that income-tax shall not be levied on any award or\nagreement made (except those made under section 46) under the RFCTARR Act.\nTherefore, compensation received for compulsory acquisition of land under the\nRFCTLARR Act (except those made under section

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

2 of section 263 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the assessment order passed u/s 143(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

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

143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings. The assesseehas declared income from house property, income from other sources and loss from business or profession, in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has shown loss of Rs.10,06,265/- from business or profession, which

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

2) Plot of Land 27/03/2019 Value u/s 50C 1552000 Sale Consideration Received 600000 Sale Consideration 600000 Less: Transfer Expenses 0 600000 Less: indexed Cost Cost 533333 F.Y. 2002-03200000/105*280 533333 Total Long term Capital Gain 66667 Capital Loss Rs. 272271/- will not be set off -272271 From any other head of Income Further stating that the plots

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

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

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The substantial issue pertained to the correctness of the lower authorities' action in computing the assessee's long-term capital gain.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that no reference was made to the DVO under section 50C(2

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

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 29.12.2017 by the Assessing Officer, ITO-3(2), Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, we find that we find that during the pendency of proceedings before this Tribunal, the Assessee Shri Baldev Singh Bhadoriya expired

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

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 on virtual digital assets. The assessee furnished the computation of short-term capital gains on virtual digital asset together with the complete summary transaction of virtual digital assets before the learned

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

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

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

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

2,74,33,250/- received from her sister Mrs. Shashi Bansal, resident of F-303, Saritha Vihar, New Delhi- 110076 PAN- AAUPB6378F and she has also declared the same in her income tax return. The assessee also claimed to have received gifts from Manju Agarwal of Rs 6,25,000/-, among other parties. The assessee submitted the documents regarding