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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

234B is either not chargeable or has excessively and incorrectly been charged.” Ground Nos. 1 to 3, challenge the CIT(A)’s action of upholding the 2. initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the IT Act. 3. The following are the reasons recorded by the AO to form belief of escapement of income: “The information has been received from

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 arise. The liability of advance tax arose only after sale of property in accordance with the provisions of section 207 to 211. The e return was filed showing normal income of rupees 266005400 and income under section 115JB of rupees 3 50503 102. The intimation under section 143(1) was received on 3rd June 2019 determining demand

RAGHUVENDRA KUMAR VARSHNEY,ALIGARH vs. I.T.O., WARD-1, ALIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Capital Gain shown by the appellant is arbitrary, wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case. 2.2 Because in any view, treating and computing the income during the relevant year by taking proceeds of all 15 Flats, against proceeds of 5 Flats belonging and shown by appellant (proceeds of 10 Flats belonging to the contractor) is grossly

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

3. 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 confirming the addition of Rs. 95,20,372 under section 68 of the Act, 1961 whereas in the appellant case section 68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances

NITESH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), AGRA

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member Nitesh Agarwal Vs Income Tax 29/81, Lakshmi Palace, Officer-2(1) (3), Namakkimandi, Agra- Agra 282003 Pan No Abnpa2197G Appellant Respondent

3), NamakkiMandi, Agra- AGRA 282003 PAN NO ABNPA2197G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by: Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department by : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2026 ORDER The Assessee has filed this appeal against the order of ld CIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), letter dated 30th September 2025 Assessee has filed following grounds

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

234B of the ‘Act’. 7. BECAUSE, while making and sustaining the assessment the ‘AO’ and ‘CIT(A)’ has made various observations which are contrary to facts on records. ITA 314/Agr/2015 3 8. BECAUSE, assessment order to the extent making variation in the Income returned is bad in facts and in law. The appellant reserves his right to add, delete, modify

SMT ARCHANA DUTTA,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Archana Dutta, Prop. M/S Vs..Acit,Circle-3, Dutta & Dutta Construction, Co., Mathura. 77E Dutta & Dutta Construction, Govind Nagar, Mathura. Panno.Afxpd7557B (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 234B of the Act as the Income of the assessee is subjected to TDS.” 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Contractor and work of road construction under government departments. Return of income was e-filed on 24.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 17,96,170/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. However

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

234B is incorrectly charged.” 3. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2 | P a g e 4. It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have made section 69A addition of Rs.1,51,04,500/- in assessee’s hands thereby rejecting her explanation

SH. SUNIL AGARWAL,JHANSI vs. I.T.O.-6(3), JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

234B and 234C as per Notice of Demand dt.04.02.2015 is wrong, illegal & excessive.” 2. Apropos Ground No.1.1 and 1.2, the assessee claimed exemption under section 54F of the IT Act on sale of a residential house which was in a dilapidated condition and was not in a habitable state, i.e., in ruins (khandharnuma). The AO, however, denied the claim

GOVIND PRASAD,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(5), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

section 234B is wrong and the same in any case are unreasonable and excessive.” Brief facts of the case:- In this case, vide order u/s 143(1) of the Act, CPC, Bangalore, 3. determined the total income at Rs.15,09,380/- against the return of income of Rs.9,33,380/- by making the addition of Rs.5,76,000/- Long Term