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

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

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

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

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

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