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

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

v. Agra Agra-282010, Uttar Pradesh PAN :AAUPA1917A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue by Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 07.02.2025 ORDER This appeal in ITA No. 113/Agr/2021 for the assessment year 2016-17 has arisen from the appellate order dated 15.09.2021 [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035585472(1)], passed by learned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

v. Ward 1(1), Gwalior-474001,Madhya Aayakar Bhawan Main Building, Pradesh Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh PAN : ASOPG0023F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by S/Sh. Rajendra Sharma & Manuj Sharma, Advs. Revenue by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.01.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.02.2025 ORDER This appeal in ITA No. 176/Agr/2024 for the assessment year 2017-18 has arisen from the appellate

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

9-17)\nv) Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax*\n[2024] 165 taxmann.com 232 (Kolkata - Trib.) IN THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH\n'C' (CLPB 18-19)\nvi) Rajesh Jain v ITO Ward-1 Jind (2007) 162 Taxman 212 (Chandigarh)\n(CLPB 20-22)\nvii) Gurbachan Kaur v Dy CIT (2019) TaxPub(DT) 8127 (Jp-Trib.) (CLPB

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

9. It is seen that the reply by the Assessee was filed on 07.08.2019 which did not cover many of the queries raised by the DCIT, Circle 2(1) (1), Agra and left many questions unanswered, and after a period of almost 3 months, rather than making further inquiry or verification which should have been made, the Assessing Officer suddenly

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

9. It is seen that the reply by the Assessee was filed on 07.08.2019 which did not cover many of the queries raised by the DCIT, Circle 2(1) (1), Agra and left many questions unanswered, and after a period of almost 3 months, rather than making further inquiry or verification which should have been made, the Assessing Officer suddenly

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

section 69 of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3 That while making and sustaining the addition, the authorities below has not considered and appreciated the facts that the assessee is doing business since last so many years. The deposits made

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

section 69 of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3 That while making and sustaining the addition, the authorities below has not considered and appreciated the facts that the assessee is doing business since last so many years. The deposits made

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

section 69 of Income tax Act, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained by CIT Appeal is liable to be deleted. 3 That while making and sustaining the addition, the authorities below has not considered and appreciated the facts that the assessee is doing business since last so many years. The deposits made

SHRI HARENDRA NATH GUPTA,FIROZABAD vs. P CIT CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

1- CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 206 Bom (HC) "Principal objection which revisional authority expressed against order of AO was an alleged failure of A to examine whether capital gain had been earned on transaction relating to investment "held to maturity" and depreciation was claimed on investments held as stock in trade. Court noted from records