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

section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission was challenged | by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Gwalior by filing a Writ in the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Petition No. 9026/2013. 4. That aforesaid Writ Petition No. 9026/2013 was dismissed for want

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

section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission was challenged | by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Gwalior by filing a Writ in the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Petition No. 9026/2013. 4. That aforesaid Writ Petition No. 9026/2013 was dismissed for want

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

section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That the aforesaid order of Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission was challenged | by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Gwalior by filing a Writ in the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh being Writ Petition No. 9026/2013. 4. That aforesaid Writ Petition No. 9026/2013 was dismissed for want

PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1) of the Act for assessment year 2024-25 on 10-7-24 showing its total income at Rs. 6,27,260/- comprising of – Income from salary - Rs. 3,10,000 Income from long-term capital gains - Rs. 99,677 Income from short-term capital gains - Rs.169,324 Income from other sources - Rs. 48,263 4

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 on 100% sale consideration. Prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow assessee’s claim u/s. 54 of the Act in respect of the same. 12. Learned DR has submitted that the Revenue has already allowed benefit of section 54 in respect of one of the residential properties No. 19/180, Tila Ajmeri, Ghati Mamu Bhanja, Agra whereas

USHA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ITO 4(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

4, Agra that Smt. UshaAgarwal, 95, Kaveri Kunj, Phase- 2, Kamla Nagar, Agra, sold the property on 02.12.2006 for Rs. 14,00,000/- whereas, its valuation for the purpose of stamp duty was at Rs. 17,40,000/- thus taking into the value according to section 50C of the Act, taking its purchase cost, the net capital gain

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

4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this 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

section 50C and the same is reproduced as under: - Name of the Amount of Stamp Amount Sale Proportionate vendee total sale registration considered amount stamp value consideration value for received for assesse computing by the capital gain assesse 1 2 3 4

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

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

4. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The reasons for reopening of assessment have been incorporated in the impugned order, which is also reproduced above. Copy of same is also filed at page 11 of the paper book. According to section 147 of the IT Act, the essential ingredient of this section has been that

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

Capital Gain shown by the appellant is arbitrary, wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case. 2.2 Because in any view, treating and computing the income during the relevant year by taking proceeds of all 15 Flats, against proceeds of 5 Flats belonging and shown by appellant (proceeds of 10 Flats belonging to the contractor) is grossly

YOGENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) GWL, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

capital gain be determined. 2. The appellant craves leave to add amend any ground at the time or before hearing of appeal.” Ground No. 3 (Additional Legal Ground) "That the appellate order passed by the NFAC dated 30.03.2024 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, they have passed the order without

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)

section 207 to 211. Because the appellant craves leave to add, modified, subtract any grounds (ii) of appeal at the time hearing. In appeal memo appellant has submitted the condonation of delay in the 2.5 column no 15, which is reproduced here under: LT.A No. 54/AGR/2021 4 "THE APPELLANT EARNED INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS

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)

section 50C) Rs.8,40,000/- Cost of acquisition Rs.1,07,200/- Cost of improvement Rs.5,00,000/- Short term capital gains Rs.2,32,800/- 4

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 250(4) of the Іпсоте Тах Act, in absence\nof which the appeal dismissed by the NFAC is highly unjustified,\nno addition is liable to be sustained, same is liable to be deleted.\n3.\nThat no capital gain

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 of the Finance Act, 2015 is misplaced as the said Explanation is applicable from A.Y. 2016- 17 and is not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. Gurdeep Singh vs. PCIT 4

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption of Rs. 95,20,372 being the long term capital gain arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. Under section

SHRI BASANT MAKHIJA,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-I, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeals and Cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2008-09

capital gain received from transfer of agriculture land to the farmers only. But according to Development agreement and registered deed which was signed by assessee holding the power of attorney on behalf of original seller Mr. Bajandas Kashinath Bankar this land has commercial and capitalistic nature/intentions and misuse of this section which is wholly and exclusively for the relief/benefit

HARI SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes treated as

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain Tax was chargeable. 4. That the A.O did not accepted our plea and investment u/s 54F was ignored and by applying provisions of section