JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Gains of business or Profession” or “ Income from other & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 7 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) sources”. The completion of assessment under Chapter IV and invoking provisions of section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the case of the appellant which is enjoying registration u/s 12A. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both

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

2) Act, 2004 comes into force89a; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that Chapter : 90[Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section 115JB.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “equity oriented

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

2) Act, 2004 comes into force89a; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that Chapter : 90[Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section 115JB.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “equity oriented

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

2) Act, 2004 comes into force89a; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that Chapter : 90[Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section 115JB.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “equity oriented

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

2) Act, 2004 comes into force89a; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that Chapter : 90[Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section 115JB.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “equity oriented

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

2) Act, 2004 comes into force89a; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that Chapter : 90[Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section 115JB.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, “equity oriented

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

2 | P a g e capital gain is exigible to tax, as the appellant/assessee had purchased two new residential house properties bearing No. 19/180 (in his name) and 19/01(jointly with his wife), situated at Tila Ajmeri Khan, Ghati Mamu Bhanja, Agra on 04.02.2014 for Rs.8,50,000/- and Rs.28,00,000/- respectively, hence, in terms of deduction envisaged

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

2. The brief facts are that the assessee during the assessment year 2012-13 had declared an income of Rs.4,64,940/- . In the return of income, the assessee had claimed capital gains of Rs.99,95,501/- u/s. 54F arising on account of sale of 20238 and 4762 equity shares of Rs.10/- each of M/s. R.P. Edible Oils

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2, Kamla Nagar, Agra, sold the property on 02.12.2006 for Rs. 14,00,000/- whereas, its valuation for the purpose of stamp duty was at Rs. 17,40,000/- thus taking into the value according to section 50C of the Act, taking its purchase cost, the net capital gain does arise above the taxable limit prevailing in the year

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Gains of business or Profession" or " Income from other sources". The completion of assessment under Chapter IV and invoking provisions of section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 6. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL HUF,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year:2012-13

section 54 of the IT Act. The 3 authorities below were not justified is not properly appreciating the position of law and facts and have erred in not allowing exemption u/s 54 of IT Act. 5. Because the order of CIT Appeal is illegal and bad in law deserved to be cancelled.” Brief facts: 2. The assessee sold a residential

HARI SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes treated as

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

capital gains I.T.A No.440/Agra/2017 2 tax was chargeable in this case being 85% of net consideration invested in assets u/s 54B of the IT Act 1961. 2. Because the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the order passed by the AO u/s 144 of the IT Act 1961 was in order

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

54 in para 4 to the following effect : Issue of disallowing the rebate/exemption from long term capital gain: Assessee sold agriculture land for Rs. 88,38,000/- situated at Kedar Pur. This 7 bigha agriculture land was purchased on 16.09.1997 for Rs. 4,27,778/- which has the price of Rs. 7.12.102/- as per cost inflation index. After including

DINESH CHANDRA DUTTA,ALIGARH vs. CIT A, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2015-16

section 54 by Finance Act (Bill No. 2) 2014 was not applicable in the year under consideration, as the amendment was made effective from 01.04.2015 with prospective effect. The two units purchased by assessee are adjacent to each other, as is evident by Khasra No. 519 and 520 and therefore, the same should be considered for deduction u/s. 54

PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

54, Ganesh Nagar, Lawyers Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Colony, Agra 282 005 Agra- 282 002 U.P. PAN : AIVPS1077J (Appellant)(Respondent) Assessee by Shri K.K. Jain, Adv. Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 15/10/2025 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER : SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the assessee against the order

SH. SUNIL AGARWAL,JHANSI vs. I.T.O.-6(3), JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

54 of the I.T. Act by invoking provision of section 50C of the I.T. Act on sale of dilapidated / ruined house property which was not in a livable state is which is highly perverse, wrong, illegal, and bad in law. I.T.A No. 284/Agra/2016 2 1.2- Because in any view, the provision u/s 50C is not applicable on sale of property

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

54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner of the properties amounted to Rs. 31,24,200/- and this amount i.e. the difference between the Sale Consideration disclosed as per the Sale Deed and the full value of the consideration received u/s 50C amounting

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

54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner of the properties amounted to Rs. 31,24,200/- and this amount i.e. the difference between the Sale Consideration disclosed as per the Sale Deed and the full value of the consideration received u/s 50C amounting