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

5 (Additional legal ground)- "That while passing the appellate order, the NFAC has completely ignored the facts that while passing the order, the AO has not even allowed the deduction in respect of the cost of the immovable property, subject matter of capital gain, which is required to be deducted while computing of capital gain, therefore, the orders passed

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]

section 41(1) of the Act, the action of the AO in treating grant under consideration as a revenue receipt and should be taxable and accordingly confirmed the addition of Rs.17,44,85,000/-. 4.4. The relevant extract of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case

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]

Capital Gain of Rs.11,81,680/- was offered. It was further noted by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded that the stamp duty valuation of the said property was Rs.2,22,82,500/- and 50% of the same being share of the assessee comes to Rs.1,11,41,250/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer referred to the provisions of section

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

section 142(1) of the Act which was also not responded to. Finally a show cause notice was issued proposing an addition of Rs 10,05,000/- on account of cash deposits for want of explanation for source, there was no compliance. Hence the Learned AO was compelled to frame the assessment by making an addition

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