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

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 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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

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

section 54F can be given to only such an assessee who had invested the long-term capital gain in construction of a house. It was submitted by the ld. DR that no evidence of construction of house was given by the AR/assessee before the lower authorities and therefore, the lower authorities had mentioned in para 2.4 categorically that the assessee

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 5 6 Sanjeev Kumar

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

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

capital gains’ and remitting the matter to the file of ‘AO’ for verification of genuineness of purchase deed ignoring the fact that the purchase deed had been submitted as ‘additional evidence’ and remand report had been called from the ‘AO’ and the ‘AO’ had not raised any objection with regard to the genuineness while submitting remand report. Learned ‘CIT (Appeals

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)

CAPITAL GAINS IN MARCH 2018 THEREFORE THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AROSE ONLY IN MARCH. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED ON 17 MAY 2019 CHARGING INTEREST US 234C.THE APPELLANT INSTEAD OF FILING APPEAL PREFER TO FILE RECTIFICATION REQUEST AT CPC ON 9 JUNE 2019. THE RECTIFICATION ORDER RECEIVED ON EMAIL ON 21 FEB 2020 SEEN ON 2/3/2020. THE APPEAL FILED IS DELAYED

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)

capital gains by determining the same as under : Full Value of consideration (as per section 50C) Rs.8,40,000/- Cost

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

Gains from Business or Profession’. It is also stipulated in the Act that the partnership firm shall be allowed interest paid on capital of the partners @ 12% and any excess is to be disallowed in the hands of the partnership firm(Section 40

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

40, 64, 800/-. The differential sum i.e. value determined by the ld DVO and the value reported by the assessee was sought to be added as income of the assessee under the head “income from capital gains” and the same was taxed @ 20% plus applicable taxes. 5. Before the ld JCIT(A), the assessee objected that assessee is only

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL HUF,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain for purchase of residential flat and also invested huge amount of Rs.1.80 crores. The assessee cannot be made to suffer twice on account of denial of benefit of section 54 as well as non-handing over the possession pursuant to the directions of Hon’ble Karnataka High court. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR had vehemently opposed

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Gains of business or Profession" or " Income from other sources". The completion of assessment under Chapter IV and invoking provisions of section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 6. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition

ABHILASHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. JCIT RANGE-6 , JHANSI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

40(b) of the Act even after application of profit rate. BECAUSE, the ‘appellant’ denies liability of interest 6. under section 234B of the ‘Act’. 7. BECAUSE, while making and sustaining the assessment the ‘AO’ and ‘CIT(A)’ has made various observations which are contrary to facts on records. ITA 314/Agr/2015 3 8. BECAUSE, assessment order to the extent making

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

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 Pvt. Ltd sold 2800 shares at different

GUMAN SINGH KUSHWAH,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

section 50C of the Act and sought to substitute the sale consideration at Rs 12,40,000. Since there were no details filed by the assessee for the cost of acquisition, the Learned AO estimated the indexed cost of acquisition at Rs 1,00,000 and recomputed the long term capital gains

BALDEV SINGH BHADORIYA,GWALIOR vs. ITO-3(2), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Smt Kiran Lata Bhadoria, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- L/H Of Late Shri Baldev 3(2), Singh Bhadoria, Gwalior Mig-20, Darpan Colony, 474005, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahopb3071D Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

capital gains, income from other sources and income from business and profession. During the year under consideration, the Assessee has purchased an agricultural land measuring 5.874 hectares situated at village Baretha, Patwari, Halka 101, Vikaskhand-Morar on 12-08-2014. On perusal of the Smt Kiran Lata Bhadoria purchase deed, it was noticed that purchase consideration of the property

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