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

3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted

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

3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted

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

3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted

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

3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted

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

3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed." 26. It was submitted that on the basis of the above that once the submission has been accepted

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

3- BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case, the appellant denies its liability in terms of Notice dated 31/03/2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act as the notice issued under section 148 is barred by limitation given in section 149 of the Act. Since there was no escapement of any income chargeable

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

7 capital gain resulted into escapement of income and to assesses it, issuance of notice under section 148 was considered necessary by the AO. It has been further contended that the very basis leading to the issuance of the notice was shown to be wrong before the AO, as in its first communication made in compliance to the notice dated

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

3) Where the new asset is transferred within a period of three years from the date of its purchase or, as the case may be, its construction, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause

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

7. Because, without prejudice to the above, learned ‘CTT (Appeals)’ erred in not quantifying, the amount of income chargeable as ‘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

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

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

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT 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

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

AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

capital gains arise. The liability of advance tax arose only after sale of property in accordance with the provisions of section 207 to 211. The e return was filed showing normal income of rupees 266005400 and income under section 115JB of rupees 3 50503 102. The intimation under section 143(1) was received on 3rd June 2019 determining demand

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

7 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 assessee should be treated as business receipts and not as capital receipt as claimed by the assessee. Since the flats sold are stock in trade and not capital assets. Therefore the profit generated "is business income and not capital gains. Without prejudice to the stand taken above the flats were not held for 36 months

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

Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made, computing the long term capital gain by the AO, sustained by the NFAC is liable to be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year ,on 02.08.2017 , declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Return was processed

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)

7. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the addition of ₹2,32,800/- towards short-term capital gains by estimating/substituting the cost of acquisition is bad in law and on facts. The Assessing Officer could not have adopted an estimated cost in place of the Appellant's evidenced cost without any reference to the Departmental

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

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 the cost of construction (Rs. 2,30..000/- in 2002-03, as per cost inflation index Rs. 2,83,512/-) this land had purchase value of Rs. 9.95.614/- and was sold

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

3) of the I.T. Act dated 18.12.2017 is hereby cancelled with the directions to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after examining the issues as discussed above and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Learned Counsel for the assessee contended that Assessing