GURDEEP SINGH,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1,, AGRA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmagurdeep Singh Vs. The Pr. Cit-1 33, Laxmi Nagar, Sikandra, Agra Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282007 Pan No. Aflps 7500 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Verma, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surendra Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2023

capital gains and after due enquiry he has allowed assessee’s claim. He further submitted that Learned Pr.CIT relied upon the Explanation 2 of Section 263

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

263 ITR 706 (SC).\nGeneral Insurance Corpn. of India v. CIT [1999] 106 Тахтап 389, 240 ITR139 (SC).\nThe AO's objection regarding section 10(37) does not hold good as exemption has\nnot only been claimed under section 10(37) of the IT Act, 1961 but also under the\nRFCTLARR Act, 2013.\nSection 96 of the \"RFCTLARR

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

section 50C of the Act, while assessing capital gains earned on the said transaction, and make addition of the excess of the stamp duty value to the actual consideration received. (2) . The assessee was found to have been allowed claim of deduction /exemption of its capital gain u/s. 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.16,06,618/- without any proof

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

section 50C of the Act, while assessing capital gains earned on the said transaction, and make addition of the excess of the stamp duty value to the actual consideration received. (2) . The assessee was found to have been allowed claim of deduction /exemption of its capital gain u/s. 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.16,06,618/- without any proof

AJIT SINGH,SHIVPURI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No 263/Agr/2025 is allowed

capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land, and it would be taxable in the Assessment Year corresponding to the Financial Year when the actual sale deeds were executed, i.e., FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), not FY 2009-10 (AY 2010-11) when the advance was received. Therefore, the invocation of Section 263

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

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the year under

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

263 days in both the above said appeals stand condoned. ITA No. 260/Agr/2025: 2 | P a g e ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 4. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee did not file any return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the documents/information gathered from AIR filer, the Assessing Officer noticed that during the year under

SHRI HARENDRA NATH GUPTA,FIROZABAD vs. P CIT CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

capital gain had been earned on transaction relating to investment "held to maturity" and depreciation was claimed on investments held as stock in trade. Court noted from records that assessee had supplied details of long term investment on which profit was computed. Similarly assessee had also explained depreciation. On basis of this enquiry AO concluded that assessee was entitled

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

gain. Also verification of properties sale transaction was\nalso the issue. Still this bench did not allow crossing the limit without obtaining\nprior permission.\nd) Sukhdham Infrastructure LLP v. Income Tax Officer (2024) 165\nTaxmann.com 154 (Kolkata Trib.)\nIssue:-There were four issues to verify (i) Interest Expenses (ii) Income from\nreal Estate Business (iii) Sales Turnover Mismatch

PRAMOD KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains, which arose on sale of agricultural land. The Assessing Officer further added an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of disallowance of expenses debited in the profit and loss account for want of supportive documentary evidences. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals) who confirmed the additions made by the learned Assessing

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Gains of business or Profession” or “ Income from other & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 7 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) sources”. The completion of assessment under Chapter IV and invoking provisions of section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the case of the appellant which is enjoying registration u/s 12A. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Gains of business or Profession” or “ Income from other & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 7 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) sources”. The completion of assessment under Chapter IV and invoking provisions of section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the case of the appellant which is enjoying registration u/s 12A. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Gains of business or Profession” or “ Income from other & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 7 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) sources”. The completion of assessment under Chapter IV and invoking provisions of section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the case of the appellant which is enjoying registration u/s 12A. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both

GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

capital gains, arising out of sale of properties to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The only issue under dispute during the assessment year was with respect to the outstanding trade payable liability of Rs.34,45,60,149/- in respect of 119 parties out 257 sundry creditors. It appears from the perusal of assessment order and the impugned first appellate