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

section 2(14) of the Act. Finding no details of capital gain tax on sale of immovable property, learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer framed his reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and with the prior approval of the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax u/s. 151 of the Act, issued notice dated

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

2) Act, 1965 by virtue of which the amount declared by the declarant was to be charged to Income Tax “as if such amount were the total income of declarant” was limited in its scope, and it could not invoked in the assessment proceedings relating to any person other than the person making the declaration under the said Finance

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)

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

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

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

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

2) of the Act was made by ld AO. The ld DVO valued the property at ₹40, 64, 800/-. The differential sum i.e. value determined by the ld DVO and the value reported by the assessee was sought to be added as income of the assessee under the head “income from capital gains” and the same was taxed @ 20% plus

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

2) was issued by the AO to the assessee, which was claimed by the AO to have been duly served on the assessee. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings. The assessee P a g e | 3 Sarita Agrawal derived income from salary, tuition, embroidery and interest income. The AO observed that the assessee has shown long term capital gain

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

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

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

2,18,060/-. In the said return, the assessee had claimed an exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on account of long-term capital gains from sale of shares of HPC Biosciences Ltd. The following facts are undisputed and indisputable:- a. The assessee purchased 4000 shares of HPC Biosciences Ltd @ 35 per share for ₹1,40,000/- through Cameo

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

15,00,000/- in Mutual Funds is shown on the date 08.12.2012 by the Assessee in the Reply dated 07.08.2019 but no query or clarification regarding the same has been made. 9. It is seen that the reply by the Assessee was filed on 07.08.2019 which did not cover many of the queries raised by the DCIT, Circle 2

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

15,00,000/- in Mutual Funds is shown on the date 08.12.2012 by the Assessee in the Reply dated 07.08.2019 but no query or clarification regarding the same has been made. 9. It is seen that the reply by the Assessee was filed on 07.08.2019 which did not cover many of the queries raised by the DCIT, Circle 2

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

2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank

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

2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank

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

2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank

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

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

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