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 of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then the Revenue/ appellant is bound to give effect to the settlement commission and order

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 of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then the Revenue/ appellant is bound to give effect to the settlement commission and order

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 of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted by the Settlement Commission then the Revenue/ appellant is bound to give effect to the settlement commission and order

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

26,70,086/- instead of Rs. 1,00,67,743/- estimated by him. 5.11.2 For computation of capital gain, the AO has taken entire amount of the sale consideration received by the assesse(appellant). However, after going through the 4 | P a g e sale deed, I have found that some of the amounts have been directly paid

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

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

26 of impugned order itself). 5. Because on due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, learned ‘CIT (Appeals)’ has erred in upholding the validity of assessment without properly appreciating the fact that there has been no proper service of notice under section 142(1) of the ‘Act’ to all the legal heirs of the deceased appellant. Learned

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)

26,60,05,400/- declaringg total provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 35,05,03,102/- under the provisions of section 115JB. During the year appellant hassold fixed asset on 07-03-2018. While processing the ITR the CPC Bengaluru charged interest u/s 234B amounting to Rs. 7,66,824/- and u/s 234C amounting

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

26 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, this request is accepted. Necessary changes in the record be made, as such. This appeal has been filed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 18.01.2013, 4. deciding the appeal an ex parte qua the assessee, partly allowing it. The following Grounds of appeal have been raised: 3 &ITA No. 146/Agra/2017 “That

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

26 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, this request is accepted. Necessary changes in the record be made, as such. This appeal has been filed against the CIT(A)’s order dated 18.01.2013, 4. deciding the appeal an ex parte qua the assessee, partly allowing it. The following Grounds of appeal have been raised: 3 &ITA No. 146/Agra/2017 “That

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Gains of business or Profession" or " Income from other sources". The completion of assessment under Chapter IV and invoking provisions of section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 6. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

capital gains tax made by the A.O. at Rs. 17,38,000/- on the basis of stamp value under section 50C pending valuation report from the departmental valuer sought by A.O. is illegal and arbitrary.” 2. Apropos Ground No.2, according to the assessee, as is clear from the assessment order, no notice

SMT. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

section, cannot be used for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings, in my opinion, is not correct.” We do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, grounds Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 are dismissed. 7. Grounds Nos. 2.1 to 2.3 are on merits. The assessee, Smt. Bina Wadhva filed the return of income declaring

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

gains, income from other sources and income from business and profession. During the year under consideration, the Assessee has purchased an agricultural land measuring 5.874 hectares situated at village Baretha, Patwari, Halka 101, Vikaskhand-Morar on 12-08-2014. On perusal of the Smt Kiran Lata Bhadoria purchase deed, it was noticed that purchase consideration of the property has been

HOTI LAL,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), MATHURA

In the result, appeals of the assessee stans allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenahoti Lal S/O Shri Ram Dayal, Vs. Income Tax Officer 3(2), Aurangabad, Mathura. Mathura. Pan: Abypl9237B (Assessee) (Revenue)

Gains, by way of treating the land sold within 8 Km. from Municipal Limits of Mathura. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee went before the Ld. CIT(A) who rejected the assessee’s submission thatthe land sold was beyond 8 Km. from Municipal Limits of Mathura and a Capital Asset as per Section

M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

gains shown by assessee was bogus and no separate reason disclosing satisfaction of Assessing Officer for formation of belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued u/s I.T.A Nos. 41 & 40/Agra/2017 8 148 of the Act was to be quashed and assessment made in pursuance thereof was to be annulled". It was submitted

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

gains shown by assessee was bogus and no separate reason disclosing satisfaction of Assessing Officer for formation of belief that income of assessee had escaped assessment had been recorded, notice issued u/s I.T.A Nos. 41 & 40/Agra/2017 8 148 of the Act was to be quashed and assessment made in pursuance thereof was to be annulled". It was submitted

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 50C of the Act and noted that the escapement of income was thereto the extent of Rs.21,41,250/-(Rs.1,11,41,250/- - Rs.90,00,000/-). 5. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer for the reasons stated in the assessment order disallowed the claim of expenses amounting to Rs.19,40,000/- and Rs.9,45,000/- under the head

PUNJAB GENERAL MANUFACTURING WORKS ,MATHURA vs. JURISDICTIONAL, A.O DC/AC CIRCLE -1(3)(1),MATHURA), MATHURA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT -1(1) Udaygiri Bhaskar lane Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. PAN: AADCR7430F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment year: 2018-19 M/s. B.P. Oils Mills Ltd. vs. J.O. Circle 2(1)(1) Maithan Agra U.P. Agra U.P. 282001 PAN: AAACB6524H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) ITA No.86&105/Agr/2021 Assessment year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Sh. Danvir