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

Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made, computing the long term capital gain by the AO, sustained by the NFAC is liable to be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year ,on 02.08.2017 , declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Return was processed

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

section 54F of the Act, if capital gain arises to an eligible assessee on transfer of any long term capital asset (not being a residential house), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer, purchased, or has within a period of three years after the date of transfer, constructed

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

45,937/-\n1,20,36,484/-\n2.\nConveyance Expenses\n1,26,809/-\n31,702/-\n3.\nDepreciation Expenses\n2,44,778/-\n61,195/-\n4.\nDress Expenses\n1,99,408/-\n49,852/-\n5.\nEmployee Provident Fund\n81,22,815/-\n20,30,704/-\n6.\nEmployee State Insurance\n15,29,419/-\n3,82,355/-\n7.\nRebate & discount\n2,35,195/-\n58,799/-\n8.\nRent

M/S CHATTA SUGAR CO. LTD,MATHURA vs. A.C.I..T CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

2(24) and Section 28 of the Act. 2.6. The Assessing Officer further noted that assuming for the moment that the amount received by the assessee was a capital receipt, but the fact remained that the sum found its way in discharging trading liability. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee was thus not required to pay trading liability

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the appeal of the assessee is being decided after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of material available on record. 3. This appeal has been filed on 17.01.2025 against the order dated 22.02.2023 of the NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) which as per the appeal memo was received

RAMESHWAR DAYAL, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2),GWALIOR , GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Rameshwar Dayal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Chitrkoot Ward-3(2), Colony, Near Fojawali Gwalior School, Kotputli, Jaipur, 303 108, Rajasthan (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Devang Gargiega, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay of 727 days in filing of appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal. Considering the reason adduced in the condonation petition, in the interest of substantial justice, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing of appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal of the assessee

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