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

section 148 of the Act. Bare reading of ‘reasons recorded’ in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Courts in this regard would show that those are ‘No Reasons’ in the eyes of law being based on new material facts on record and mere change of opinion by the Assessing officer recording alleged ’satisfaction’ of ‘escapement

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

68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption of Rs. 95,20,372 being the long term capital gain arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. 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

capital gains. The ld DR on this count submitted that mere mentioning of wrong section would not invalidate the addition per se. To buttress this argument of the ld DR, the ld AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court, in the case of Smt Sarika Jain Vs. CIT reported in 84 taxmann.com

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

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

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

capital gains, the very nature of the receipt as an advance for agricultural land sale places it outside the purview of taxable income in the hands of the Appellant, especially when the land belongs to his sons. 5.3 The PCIT's direction to the AO to potentially add this sum as unexplained money under Section 68

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

68,000/-, in which assessee had 1/5th share, i.e., Rs.13,61,600/-. Letters were issued to the assessee for filing return of income, but the assessee neither filed any return nor submitted any reply. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which too remained un-responded. Statutory notices were also issued

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

68,000/-, in which assessee had 1/5th share, i.e., Rs.13,61,600/-. Letters were issued to the assessee for filing return of income, but the assessee neither filed any return nor submitted any reply. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which too remained un-responded. Statutory notices were also issued

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

capital gain. Also verification of properties sale transaction was\nalso the issue. Still this bench did not allow crossing the limit without obtaining\nprior permission.\nd) Sukhdham Infrastructure LLP v. Income Tax Officer (2024) 165\nTaxmann.com 154 (Kolkata Trib.)\nIssue:-There were four issues to verify (i) Interest Expenses (ii) Income from\nreal Estate Business (iii) Sales Turnover Mismatch

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

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

capital gains tax made by the A.O. at Rs. 17,38,000/- on the basis of stamp value under section 50C pending valuation report from the departmental valuer sought by A.O. is illegal and arbitrary.” 2. Apropos Ground No.2, according to the assessee, as is clear from the assessment order, no notice

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Based on information received through Insight Portal and Income Tax Return filed by the appellant, the AO observed that for the year under consideration, the appellant had sold shares of M/s Delta Leasing & Finance Ltd for Rs.53,00,000/-, and had reported Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs.51

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

68 of the Act after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. No doubt, assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A). All the plea in law shall be available to the assessee. 8 In the Ground No.2,the assessee’s grievance is that the CIT(A) 9. has illegally and arbitrary confirmed

SMT ARCHANA DUTTA,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Archana Dutta, Prop. M/S Vs..Acit,Circle-3, Dutta & Dutta Construction, Co., Mathura. 77E Dutta & Dutta Construction, Govind Nagar, Mathura. Panno.Afxpd7557B (Assessee) (Revenue)

68 of the 'Act'. 5. BECAUSE, after having rejected the books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) of the 'Act' and thereafter computing Business Profit after application of profit rate there is no valid basis for making separate addition of Rs. 9,157/- under section 43B of the Act. 6. BECAUSE, alternatively, in any view

B.P. OIL MILLS LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT -1(1) Udaygiri Bhaskar lane Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. PAN: AADCR7430F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment year: 2018-19 M/s. B.P. Oils Mills Ltd. vs. J.O. Circle 2(1)(1) Maithan Agra U.P. Agra U.P. 282001 PAN: AAACB6524H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) ITA No.86&105/Agr/2021 Assessment year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Sh. Danvir

BAJWA RUBBER INDUSTRIES,AGRA vs. ITO-1(2)(2), AGRA/NFAC., DELHI, AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT -1(1) Udaygiri Bhaskar lane Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. PAN: AADCR7430F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment year: 2018-19 M/s. B.P. Oils Mills Ltd. vs. J.O. Circle 2(1)(1) Maithan Agra U.P. Agra U.P. 282001 PAN: AAACB6524H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) ITA No.86&105/Agr/2021 Assessment year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Sh. Danvir

ASHIRWAD FOOD AND BEVERAGES ,BHIND vs. J.A.O., DCIT/ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), GWALIOR

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT -1(1) Udaygiri Bhaskar lane Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. PAN: AADCR7430F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment year: 2018-19 M/s. B.P. Oils Mills Ltd. vs. J.O. Circle 2(1)(1) Maithan Agra U.P. Agra U.P. 282001 PAN: AAACB6524H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) ITA No.86&105/Agr/2021 Assessment year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Sh. Danvir

M/S AMBICA SHEETGRAH PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. CPC., BENGALURU/ A.O., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT -1(1) Udaygiri Bhaskar lane Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. PAN: AADCR7430F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment year: 2018-19 M/s. B.P. Oils Mills Ltd. vs. J.O. Circle 2(1)(1) Maithan Agra U.P. Agra U.P. 282001 PAN: AAACB6524H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) ITA No.86&105/Agr/2021 Assessment year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Sh. Danvir

M/S OOM SHOE COMPONENTS,AGRA vs. NFAC.,/ ITO., WARD 1(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA

In the result all the appeals filed by the

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Krishna Kanha Shelters Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Circle – 2(1)(2) Pushpanjali Palace Delhi Gate Sanjay Place, Agra U.P. Agra U.P. Pan: Aacck7160L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Banmoreelecticals Pvt Ltd Vs. Dcit Behind Park Hotel, Moti Mahal, Road City Centre Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. Pan: Aabcb4242M (Respondent) (Appellant)

Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT -1(1) Udaygiri Bhaskar lane Gwalior M.P. Gwalior M.P. PAN: AADCR7430F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment year: 2018-19 M/s. B.P. Oils Mills Ltd. vs. J.O. Circle 2(1)(1) Maithan Agra U.P. Agra U.P. 282001 PAN: AAACB6524H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 53 /Agra/2021 & Others (58) ITA No.86&105/Agr/2021 Assessment year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Sh. Danvir