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; and (ii) shares have been sold through recognized Stock Exchange after paying "STT" on their sale or bringing on record any material to support the suspicion. 11. In addition to above, in subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y.s 2006-07 and onwards, even exemption allowable U/s 10(34) of the Act for any income by way of dividend from

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; and (ii) shares have been sold through recognized Stock Exchange after paying "STT" on their sale or bringing on record any material to support the suspicion. 11. In addition to above, in subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y.s 2006-07 and onwards, even exemption allowable U/s 10(34) of the Act for any income by way of dividend from

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain; and (ii) shares have been sold through recognized Stock Exchange after paying "STT" on their sale or bringing on record any material to support the suspicion. 11. In addition to above, in subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y.s 2006-07 and onwards, even exemption allowable U/s 10(34) of the Act for any income by way of dividend from

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; and (ii) shares have been sold through recognized Stock Exchange after paying "STT" on their sale or bringing on record any material to support the suspicion. 11. In addition to above, in subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y.s 2006-07 and onwards, even exemption allowable U/s 10(34) of the Act for any income by way of dividend from

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; and (ii) shares have been sold through recognized Stock Exchange after paying "STT" on their sale or bringing on record any material to support the suspicion. 11. In addition to above, in subsequent assessment years i.e. A.Y.s 2006-07 and onwards, even exemption allowable U/s 10(34) of the Act for any income by way of dividend from

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

5. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed the claim of the assessee and computed the long term capital gain on sale of immovable properties as under : Price Indexed for F.Y. 2005-06: (497) (Purchase value Rs. 3,71,000/-) Price indexed for F.Y. 2014-15 (1024) Sale consideration of property for the year 2014-15: Rs. 45,00,000/- Less: Indexed

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

capital gain, whether it was long term or short term and which represents income that had escaped assessment. I.T.A No. 167/Agra/2018 5 It has further been submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional Allahabad High 6. Court, in the case of ‘Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs CIT’, (supra) quashed the notice under section

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

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

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

capital gain in view of the Karnataka High Court's decision referred to above. What Page 15 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO income is said to have been escaped does not find mention therein. Even assuming for the sake of argument, the income was liable to be taxed as short term gain unless there is any material before

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

gains. Without prejudice to the stand taken above the flats were not held for 36 months [Section 2(42)A] by the assessee and therefore are not long term capital assets and consequently deduction u/s 54EC is not available to assessee. Total sale consideration from sale of 5

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 IN MARCH 2018 THEREFORE THE ADVANCE

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

5. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee contended that Assessing Officer has made sufficient enquiry in this case on all the issues of the 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

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, only the actual sale consideration disclosed in the registered sale deed or, where applicable, the value adopted/assessed for stamp duty purposes under section 50C can be considered as the full value of consideration'. The Learned JCIT(Appeals) erred in law in effectively importing a notional figure derived from a private engineer's estimate for enhancement. Section 50C does

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

gain arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. Under section 10(38) of I.T.Act, 1961. 5. That on the facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gains\narising to an Individual or a HUF from compulsory acquisition of an\nagricultural land situated in specified urban limit, subject to fulfilment\nof certain conditions. Therefore, compensation received from\ncompulsory acquisition of an agricultural land is not taxable under the\nAct (subject to fulfilment of certain conditions for specified urban land).\n2. The RFCTLARR Act which came into

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

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

5 the Assessing Officer by way of speaking order on 18.09.2012. In view thereof, the objections which were raised by the assessee once disposed of, the assessee was not required to improve upon the objections on the grounds before us. In this regard, as the assessee has not seriously challenged this issue, we do not widh to adjudicate the same