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 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

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

50%, however he had calculated the amount of capital gain taking into consideration the 100% of sales consideration. 9-BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC was wrong and unjust in not allowing the benefit of section

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 50-C of the Act, taking its purchase cost , the net capital gain does arise above the taxable limit

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

capital gains of Rs. 9995501/- u/s 54 F, it was submitted that investment in land which is an integral and vital part of construction of a residential house qualifies for exemption u/s.54F and reliance on the following Judgments including the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional M.P. High Court was placed : a. Smt. Shashi Verma

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

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 has not followed the provisions of sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act, by which

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)

50,000/- as gross business receipts. Accordingly, he added the difference of Rs.3,07,400/- to the total income of the assessee. Further, he determined the short term capital gains of Rs.2,32,800/- and observed that the capital gain declared by the assessee in his ITR is not substantiated by any evidence and there is contradiction to the stamp

GULAB SINGH,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Gulab Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 50C, Ladamada Ward-1(1)(1), Bichpuri Sadar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Faeps1251N Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

50 C of the Act. The assessee filed his reply stating that the land under consideration is agricultural land and that there would be no capital gain that would arise on sale of the above land as it is outside the definition of capital asset under section

GAYATRI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1)(5), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

50 C of the Act. The assessee filed his reply stating that the land under consideration is agricultural land and that there would be no capital gain that would arise on sale of the above land as it is outside the definition of capital asset under section

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

capital gain; that if the sum of Rs.12,50,000/- is excluded from the figure of Rs.16,00,408/-, the latter being the estimate of the assessee’s income from Rasleela, the resultant figure would be Rs.3,50,408/-, and after a further reduction of 50%, i.e., the relief given by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s income from

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

capital gain; that if the sum of Rs.12,50,000/- is excluded from the figure of Rs.16,00,408/-, the latter being the estimate of the assessee’s income from Rasleela, the resultant figure would be Rs.3,50,408/-, and after a further reduction of 50%, i.e., the relief given by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s income from

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since the unsecured loans were utilized for making investment in the partnership firm from where income in the form of interest and remuneration was earned and offered for tax in the income-tax return. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

50,000/- was made as capital gain in the hands of the assessee. 5. Against such order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 22.05.2024 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. That

AJIT SINGH,SHIVPURI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No 263/Agr/2025 is allowed

capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land, and it would be taxable in the Assessment Year corresponding to the Financial Year when the actual sale deeds were executed, i.e., FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), not FY 2009-10 (AY 2010-11) when the advance was received. Therefore, the invocation of Section

CHET RAM VERMA,ETAH vs. ITO WARD-3(1), ETAH

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gain solely relying on the statement of the I.T.A No. 783/Agra/2018 3 persons who executed the power of attorney in the favour of the appellant. Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the addition has legally erred ignoring the fact that the statement cannot be relied upon and cannot be made basis of addition until and unless the opportunity of cross