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 chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 15. In the old regime, section 149(ii) prescribes the time limit

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 68 of the Income Tac Act, the inclusion of the impugned amount in the assessee’s income was justified.” In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned case law (marked in bold), it is immaterial whether the company, M/s. Techman Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Has declared the sale proceeds

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

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

capital gain in view of the Karnataka High Court's decision referred to above. What Page 15 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO income is said to have been escaped does not find mention therein. Even assuming for the sake of argument, the income was liable to be taxed as short term gain unless there is any material before

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)

section 50C) Rs.8,40,000/- Cost of acquisition Rs.1,07,200/- Cost of improvement Rs.5,00,000/- Short term capital gains Rs.2,32,800/- 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals) and filed the detailed submission before him. After considering the detailed submissions, learned CIT(Appeals) sustained the additions made by the Assessing

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

section 2(14)(iii)(b)(l) of the Act. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain on the sale of this capital asset and also failed to furnish any documentary evidence with respect to the questioned property, the Assessing Officer treated the entire sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- as long term capital gain and proposed the same

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 40(b)(iv)). The assessee has charged interest @ 12% from the said partnership firm. It is also observed that the assessee has incurred interest expenditure of Rs.50,83,665/-, which is sought to be adjusted under and head profits and gains from business or profession. Said expenses of Rs.50,83,665/- constitute interest on loan to the tune

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

capital gains. The ld DR on this count submitted that mere mentioning of wrong section would not invalidate the addition per se. To buttress this argument of the ld DR, the ld AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court, in the case of Smt Sarika Jain Vs. CIT reported in 84 taxmann.com

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

capital gain on sale of shares ,and the income was claimed as exempt from income-tax. The assessee was asked by the AO to furnish complete details of purchase and sale of shares/mutual funds, but the assessee did not file any evidences nor filed any reply. The AO made addition of Rs.1,15,995/- to the income of the assessee

RUBY JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

15,90,061/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. f. HPC Biosciences Ltd is a scrip listed on Bombay stock Exchange (BSE). g. The shares were sold by the assessee in secondary market, through a stock broker duly registered with SEBI in the recognised stock exchange. h. The sale transaction carried out in secondary

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA (HUF),AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshajay Kumar Gupta (Huf), Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-163/1, Kamla Nagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajha4155K Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

Section 44AD of the Act at Rs. 2,53,877/- on the total sales of Rs. 15,62,320. Apart from that, the Assessee had shown short-term capital gains

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

15) and dated 30/11/2017 (CLPB-\n49) on limited scrutiny matters. The crux of the instructions is summarized as\nunder-\ni. The questionnaire u/s 142(1) shall be confined only to the issue of limited\nscrutiny.\nii. Approval of PCIT/CIT concern shall be obtained to convert the limited\nscrutiny to full scrutiny.\niii. PCIT/CIT concern shall grant approval in writing

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

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

Section 68 of the Act for not proving the creditworthiness of the donor. 5. With regard to gift received from Smt Manju Agarwal, sister of the assessee in the sum of Rs 6,25,000/-, the assessee submitted that the said amount was transferred by Smt Manju Agarwal out of her personal funds accumulated in the bank account. The assessee

SIDDHI VINAYAK SHIKSHA PRASAR EVAM SAMAJ KALYAN SAMITI,GWALIOR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

capital gains which have not accrued or arisen to him. It would indeed be most harsh and inequitable to tax the assessee on income which has neither arisen to him nor is received by him. merely because he has carried out the contractual obligation undertaken by him. It is difficult to conceive of any rational reason why the Legislature should