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

d). Capital gain = [(a-b)-c]=[(49,66,681 – 4,22,170)=45,44,511/- 3.2 The Assessing Officer also observed that the value of property sold (share of assessee) as per Stamp Valuation Authority is Rs.49,66,681/- ,whereas the assessee has adopted Rs.22,50,000/-. The AO made additions on account of under reported the value

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 213/AGR/2025 for AY 2016-17, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 16/05/2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 37/AGR/2025 for AY 2015-16, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 04.01.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

22,815/-\n20,30,704/-\n6.\nEmployee State Insurance\n15,29,419/-\n3,82,355/-\n7.\nRebate & discount\n2,35,195/-\n58,799/-\n8.\nRent Expenses\n1,44,000/-\n36,000/-\n9.\nStaff Salaries Expense\n27,33,027/-\n6,83,256/-\nTotal\n6,14,81,388/-\n1,53,70,347/-\nLearned AR has referred order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Jaipur

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

22,50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received has been disclosed at only Rs. 54,16,600/- by the 2 co-owners i.e. Dr. Sarika Srivastava

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

22,50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received has been disclosed at only Rs. 54,16,600/- by the 2 co-owners i.e. Dr. Sarika Srivastava

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

KISHOR KUMAR GARG,JOURA ROAD, MORENA vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkishor Kumar Garg, Vs. Acit, Joura Road, Morena, Gwalior, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acopg5428J Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 363/AGR/2025 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 02.05.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated