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

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gain of Rs.37,35,606/-, learned Assessing Officer allowed deduction to the extent of Rs.9,31,060/- (sale consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- plus Stamp Duty of Rs.81,060/-) pertaining to purchase of first new residential house property No. 19/180, Tila Ammeri Khan, Ghati Mamu Bhanja, Agra, treating it as a new residential house property, but disallowed the balance

ITO 1(2), GWALIOR vs. SMT REENA AGRAWAL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains of Rs. 9995501/- u/s 54 F, it was submitted that investment in land which is an integral and vital part of construction of a residential house qualifies for exemption u/s.54F and reliance on the following Judgments including the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional M.P. High Court was placed : a. Smt. Shashi Verma

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

35 flats under process. After considering all the facts of the case the receipts in the hand of the I.T.A No.106/Agra/2013 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 assessee should be treated as business receipts and not as capital receipt as claimed by the assessee. Since the flats sold are stock in trade and not capital assets. Therefore the profit generated

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)

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 to Rs. 29,74,897/-. Aggrieved with the charging of interest u/s 234C, the appellant has filed this

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

35 and section 37 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as applicable on Valuer as per provisions of sub section (2) of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, when matter is referred to Valuation officer for valuation. 2.3 Because the AVO has not acted judicially and fairly, rather acted arbitrarily and also did not conform to the principles of natural

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

35 and when it was enquired in e-filing portal, the fact of passing of order was come to the notice of the assessee. Thereafter immediately assessee rushed up and filed the appeal. Under these circumstances, it is requested that the delay be condoned as the assessee has sufficient cause for such delay. 3. After perusing the facts, we find

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

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 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

RUBY JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

35 per share for ₹1,40,000/- through Cameo Corporate Services Ltd for allotment made for Initial Public Offer (IPO) on 15.03.2013. b. Payments for the same were made through regular banking channels. c. The shares were duly Dematted and was credited to the Demat account maintained by the assessee. d. The assessee through her broker Seema Securities

RAM NARESH,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

35,00,000/-. It appears that during the assessment proceedings, assessee died and the assessee’s legal heir refused to take service of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed assessment u/s. 144 read with section 147 of the Act and added capital gain

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

BHEEKAM SINGH,FIRZOBAD vs. ITO-2(2)(2)(1), FIRZOBAD

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and application of mind. 3. Because the learned authorities below have erred both on facts and in law in not appreciating that the amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee was out of his share of sale consideration of the land sold as per the registered sale deeds

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

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