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.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment years on the similar grounds. ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 30 14. On the last

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.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment years on the similar grounds. ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 30 14. On the last

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 of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the assessment years on the similar grounds. ITA 124 /Agr/2014 & Ors 30 14. On the last

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

section 50C Rs. 1’41’66,357 Cost of property as computed in para 5.11.4 Rs. 1,11,22,002 Short term capital gain Rs. 30,44,355 5.12 In view of the above computation. I hold that the assessee(appellant) is lible for being assessed to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head Short Term Capital

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

32,800/- and observed that the capital gain declared by the assessee in his ITR is not substantiated by any evidence and there is contradiction to the stamp duty value of the sold property. Accordingly, he treated the same as short term capital gains by determining the same as under : Full Value of consideration (as per section

SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,MAURANIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHANSI

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

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

capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w section 144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering the details filed

SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JHANSI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

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

capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w section 144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering the details filed

SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,MAURANIPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

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

capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against the assessment order dated 21.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r/w section 144B of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals), after considering the details filed

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

32,750/-, being more than double of that disclosed by the Assessee), but also a deliberate attempt was made to evade Income chargeable to tax. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 16,06,618/- as per Computation of Income filed along with Return. No proof of Construction/purchase of Residential

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

32,750/-, being more than double of that disclosed by the Assessee), but also a deliberate attempt was made to evade Income chargeable to tax. 2. The Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 16,06,618/- as per Computation of Income filed along with Return. No proof of Construction/purchase of Residential

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase-sale details

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase-sale details

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase-sale details

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

32-38)\nix) Smt Manju Kaushik v DCIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 643 (Jaipur-Trib)\n09/12/2019 (CLPB 39-48)\nWe pray the Hon'ble bench to direct the Id. AO to delete addition of Rs.\n1,04,35,000/- under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of\njudicial precedents.”\nThe Id. A/R of the assessee further submitted

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

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice