A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain cannot be transferred to such third person , without transfer of shares prior to LTCG or to the assessee , as gain ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 41 arose admittedly in contravention of lawand therefore, the action on the part of the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect. 24.3 In respect of the dividend, it was submitted that even assuming that

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain cannot be transferred to such third person , without transfer of shares prior to LTCG or to the assessee , as gain ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 41 arose admittedly in contravention of lawand therefore, the action on the part of the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect. 24.3 In respect of the dividend, it was submitted that even assuming that

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain cannot be transferred to such third person , without transfer of shares prior to LTCG or to the assessee , as gain ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 41 arose admittedly in contravention of lawand therefore, the action on the part of the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect. 24.3 In respect of the dividend, it was submitted that even assuming that

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain cannot be transferred to such third person , without transfer of shares prior to LTCG or to the assessee , as gain ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 41 arose admittedly in contravention of lawand therefore, the action on the part of the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect. 24.3 In respect of the dividend, it was submitted that even assuming that

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain cannot be transferred to such third person , without transfer of shares prior to LTCG or to the assessee , as gain ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 41 arose admittedly in contravention of lawand therefore, the action on the part of the ld. CIT(A) was incorrect. 24.3 In respect of the dividend, it was submitted that even assuming that

USHA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ITO 4(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

capital gains tax and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, the notice was issued after four years but before six years. In our opinion, the reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer was not sufficient to intiate I.T.A No. 167/Agra/2018 22 proceedings under Section

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

22,002/- 5.11.5 After computing the value of sale consideration received by the assessee(appellant) on sale of land along with flats constructed thereon and purchase cost of such land along with the flats constructed, the short term capital gain should be computed in the hand of the assessee(appellant) as under: - Sale consideration as per section

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

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

capital gains tax and, therefore, the Assessing Officer had Page 19 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO reasons to believe that the income had escaped assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, the notice was issued after four years but before six years. In our opinion, the reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer was not sufficient to intiate proceedings under

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

22,170/-) . Since, the assessee has reported loss under the head capital gains to the tune of Rs. 7,60,778/- , the AO made additions to the tune of Rs. 45,44,511/- to the income of the assessee under the head ‘capital gains’ , and loss of Rs. 7,60,778/- was disallowed/rejected by the AO. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee

AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

capital gains and not on the entire amount of tax. On consideration of the facts and provisions of law the interest charged excessively u/s 234C needs to be modified and may please be direct the AO to modify it. 2. The Ld.DR for the revenue had submitted that the assessee is not entitled for any indulgence from the Bench

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

gain arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. Under section 10(38) of I.T.Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in enhancing the income by of Rs. 2,38,009/- being unexplained expenditure u/s 69C on account

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL HUF,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year:2012-13

capital gain of Rs.91,95,570/- was accrued to the assessee after deduction of the cost of indexation. 2.1 The assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 54F, as the assessee had invested an amount of Rs. 1,13,76,245/- for the purchase of a residential flat bearing Flat No. E- 1601, 16th Floor in the building, Vivarea, at Koramangla Industrial

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

DINESH CHANDRA DUTTA,ALIGARH vs. CIT A, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2015-16

22,78,000/-. Out of the long term capital gains, the assessee invested Rs.15,00,000/- in specified bonds u/s. 54EC and also invested a sum of Rs.43,85,000/- in purchase of a flat in JNC Princes Park, Khasra No. 519, Mohiuddinpur, Kanawani, Noida and Rs. 48,90,000/- in another flat in Desire Residency, Khasra No. 520, Mohiuddinpur

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Capital Gain and claiming exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act. Assessee’s 2 | P a g e case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the appellant after obtaining necessary approvals and after following the due procedure of law. Show-cause Notice dated 27-03-2022, wherein, a draft

ABHILASHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. JCIT RANGE-6 , JHANSI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains had been erroneously computed. According to the CIT (A), since this was agreed to by the AO, the assessee cannot grudge that if ultimately the income would get enhanced, still he ought to be heard. This, once more, is without any reasoning. The assessee had filed the rectification application seeking relief. It was not a self-inculpatory application

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 SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

22,38,000/- when the A.O. has I.T.A No. 117/Agra/2017 3 himself accepted the source of income from agriculture at Rs. 2,97,620/- + 2,41,280/- other income totaling to Rs. 538900/- during the year. 11. That addition of capital gains tax made by the A.O. at Rs. 17,38,000/- on the basis of stamp value under section