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

6. However, while giving benefit of deduction claimed by assessee u/s. 54 of the Act from the capital gain of Rs.37,35,606/-, learned Assessing Officer allowed deduction to the extent of Rs.9,31,060/- (sale consideration of Rs.8,50,000/- plus Stamp Duty of Rs.81,060/-) pertaining to purchase of first new residential house property No. 19/180, Tila Ammeri

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

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

6(3), Jhansi that the Page 8 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO assessee earned any capital gains out of the sale transaction of land in question. There was no material with the AO to prima facie prove that the assessee earned capital gain because he wanted the assessee to intimate as to how capital gain arises

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

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 be determined. 2. The appellant craves leave to add amend any ground at the time or before hearing of appeal.” Ground No. 3 (Additional Legal Ground) "That the appellate order passed by the NFAC dated 30.03.2024 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6

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

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

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase-sale details

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase-sale details

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase-sale details

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

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

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, in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30-03-2021. The reassessment ultimately stood completed by treating M/s Capital Trade Link Ltd as a penny stock and the sale proceeds of shares received by the Assessee in the sum of Rs. 95,20,372/- was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section

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

GOVARDHAN SINGH,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gain’ and further that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessment order ex parte in violation of the provisions of section 250(6

SARITA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarmrs. Sarita Agrawal Acit Geeta Colony Aayakar Bhawan Dal Bazar, Gwalior- V. City Centre 474001 Gwalior-474001 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk3445P Appellant .. Respondent

6). The assessee has claimed in statement of fact and grounds of appeal filed with ld. CIT(A) that the assessee earned long term capital gains on the P a g e | 5 Sarita Agrawal sale of shares on which STT was paid and the said LTCG was exempt from tax u/s 10(38). The assessee had participated

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

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

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

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

capital gain is confirmed.” 6. The first appeal was accordingly dismissed by the first appellate authority. 7. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to others, that Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the additional evidences filed during the first appellate proceedings, wrongly denying the benefit of section

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

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

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

capital gain is confirmed.” 6. The first appeal was accordingly dismissed by the first appellate authority. 7. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to others, that Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the additional evidences filed during the first appellate proceedings, wrongly denying the benefit of section

NITESH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), AGRA

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member Nitesh Agarwal Vs Income Tax 29/81, Lakshmi Palace, Officer-2(1) (3), Namakkimandi, Agra- Agra 282003 Pan No Abnpa2197G Appellant Respondent

6) of the Act and as such, order so made is otherwise too illegal, invalid and a vitiated order. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts and in the overall circumstances of the case ‘appellant’ denies its liability to be assessed in terms of Notice dated 30.03.2019 said to be issued under section

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

6. It is not in dispute that the addition on account of differential consideration for purchase of immovable property was made by the revenue in the hands of the assessee under the head income from capital gains. It is also not in dispute that ld AO had levied tax only @ 20% which is applicable for long-term capital gains