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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital receipt\nand completed the assessment u/s 143(3), vide order dated\n10.03.2021 wherein the addition of Rs.49,50,000/- was made as\ncapital gain in the hands of the assessee.\n5. Against such order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.\nCIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 22.05.2024 has dismissed the\nappeal of the assessee, thus

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

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

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

50,000/- on 04.02.2012 by Dr. Atul Srivastava, husband of the Assessee. However, despite the fact that investments in Mutual Funds were claimed in February 2012, copy of bank account for any period outside December 2011 was neither submitted by the Assessee nor asked for again by the DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra before completion of the assessment, despite

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

50,000/- on 04.02.2012 by Dr. Atul Srivastava, husband of the Assessee. However, despite the fact that investments in Mutual Funds were claimed in February 2012, copy of bank account for any period outside December 2011 was neither submitted by the Assessee nor asked for again by the DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra before completion of the assessment, despite

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA (HUF),AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshajay Kumar Gupta (Huf), Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-163/1, Kamla Nagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajha4155K Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

Section 44AD of the Act at Rs. 2,53,877/- on the total sales of Rs. 15,62,320. Apart from that, the Assessee had shown short-term capital gains on sale of silver at Rs. 6,06,669. The computation of short-term capital gains are as under:- Sale consideration received on sale of silver

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

gains or short-term capital loss to various persons by converting their unaccounted income into accounted income. Admittedly, HPC Biosciences Ltd was one of the scrip investigated by Kolkata Investigation Wing. Based on this investigation report, the ld Assessing Officer concluded that the sale proceeds received by the assessee on sale of 2800 shares of HPC Biosciences Ltd from

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

BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

50,000/- imposed for receipt of payment in cash in contravention of section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains

BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

50,000/- imposed for receipt of payment in cash in contravention of section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains

BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

50,000/- imposed for receipt of payment in cash in contravention of section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Capital Gains and Other sources consisting of Interest and Dividend on investments. During the A.Y. 2018-19 the appellant made investments in 8% Taxable Government of India Bonds (herein after referred to as 8% RBI Bond) through Mis Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. (herein after referred to as SHCIL) as under: 8% RBI Bond Cumulative

SHARAD MAHESHWARI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR (M. P.), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sharad Maheshwari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W-63, 3Rd Floor, Ward-3(2), Greater Kailash-2, Gwalior South Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

capital gains tax for the sale of property. Further I find that the Learned CITA had stated that Smt Shashi Bansal has not been subjected to scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. This cannot be a reason to disbelieve the gift and doubt the creditworthiness of Smt Shashi Bansal. IT is not in assessee‟s hands

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