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

9 | P a g e 26.03.2018 declaring an income of Rs.3,98,560/-. It was further noticed by the Revenue that the assessee did not show capital gain as per section 2(14) of the Act. Finding no details of capital gain tax on sale of immovable property, learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer framed his reason to believe that the income

M/S CHATTA SUGAR CO. LTD,MATHURA vs. A.C.I..T CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

gains under Case I of Schedule D". 5.3 Thus, when subsidy is received from a public fund and these are to assist the assessee to carry on or business, the object of subsidy is apparent i.e. to enable the assessee to run business more profitably, become more competitive etc. These are operational subsidies and not capital subsidies. The source from

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

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

capital gain in view of the Karnataka High Court's decision referred to above. What Page 15 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO income is said to have been escaped does not find mention therein. Even assuming for the sake of argument, the income was liable to be taxed as short term gain unless there is any material before

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

9,250/- in the names of Kanhiyalal ‘s sons. Kanhiyalal, the assesse’s managing partner, disavowed all knowledge as to the capacity of the creditors to advance the said amounts and, in fact, he admitted that the creditors had no independent source of income and he could not explain the said cash credits. The assesse, however, contended that the creditors

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

9 of 2014 w.e.f. 01.01.2015 and the relevant amendment in sub-section (3)\nto Section 105reads as under:\n(3) The provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accord\nacne with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the\nSecond Schedule and infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third\nSchedule shall apply

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

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

9 05.08.2024 Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

9 05.08.2024 Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

9 05.08.2024 Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

9 05.08.2024 Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

9 05.08.2024 Samp Furniture Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)-Thane & Ors High Court of Bombay - 165 taxmann.com 581 10 05.08.2024 Kairos Properties Private Limited v. ACIT, Circle-15(1)(2), Mumbai & Ors - High Court of Bombay-468 ITR 168 11 29.08.2024 W.P.No.23573/2024 in the Case of ADIT(IntTaxn), Hyderabad v. Deepanjan Roy followed the decision

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

1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings at the fag end when the assessment was getting time barred. The assessee has shown sale of property in the ITR for the assessment year 2017-18 for Rs.22,50,000/- and claimed benefit u/s. 48 amounting

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)

1. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 and sustained/enhanced by the Learned JCIT(Appeals) is bad in law and void ab initio; all additions and enhancement so made/confirmed are liable to be deleted. 2. Because having regard to the facts

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

1,60,130/-) rental income which has been credited in consolidated capital account and hence has increased capital. The assessee drawas your kind attention towards capital gain shown in computation of income. Deduction claimed under the Capital Gain: The asseseee has shown in computation of income a Capital Gain of Rs.1,02,20,670/- which has Gurdeep Singh vs. PCIT

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

Capital Gain do not take value of property as 4 | P a g e per Stamp Value Authority as the assessee claim that the value adopted for stamp valuation is not accepted.” In such circumstances, the said adjustment could not be made u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Ld. AR has referred order dated 26.02.2020 passed by Visakhapatnam

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 arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. Under section 10(38) of I.T.Act, 1961. 5. 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 enhancing the income by of Rs. 2,38,009/- being unexplained expenditure u/s 69C on account

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

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

Appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.565/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.566/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 568/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 569/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 570/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 571/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Bhagirath Pakharia Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ 124, Nanak Ganj, Sipri Bazar, Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Vs. Jhansi (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpp-6709-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025

section 69A unexplained money addition only which is not sustainable in light of CIT Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani [(2013) 258 CTR 268 (Guj.), Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.). We, thus quash the impugned reopening on this first and foremost legal issue