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

90[Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section

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

90[Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section

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

90[Provided that the income by way of long-term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income-tax payable under section

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

capital gains of Rs. 9995501/- u/s 54 F, it was submitted that investment in land which is an integral and vital part of construction of a residential house qualifies for exemption u/s.54F and reliance on the following Judgments including the Judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional M.P. High Court was placed : a. Smt. Shashi Verma

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

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

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

Capital gains" is a loss and the assessee has income assessable under any other head of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to have such loss set off against income under the other head. (3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation

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

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

90,15,000/-) in assessee’s bank account during the F.Y. 2009-10. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2017 was issued and served upon the assessee. Asseessee filed return of income in response thereof, declaring income at Rs. 1,50,420/- and agricultural income of Rs. 9,75,240/-. Assessment proceedings were completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

90,061/- and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. f. HPC Biosciences Ltd is a scrip listed on Bombay stock Exchange (BSE). g. The shares were sold by the assessee in secondary market, through a stock broker duly registered with SEBI in the recognised stock exchange. h. The sale transaction carried out in secondary market

SH PRAKASH NARAYAN AGRAWAL ,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2 , GWALIOR

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalprakash Narayan Agrawal, Vs. Acit, Circle-2 D-55, Harishankar Puram Aayakar Bhawan, Gwalior – 474002 City Centre, Gwalior- 474011 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abupa9961F Appellant .. Respondent

90,598/- as business income than capital gains, in the course of assessment framed on 06.03.2014, without having ensured compliance to Section

DINESH CHANDRA DUTTA,ALIGARH vs. CIT A, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2015-16

capital gains, the assessee invested Rs.15,00,000/- in specified bonds u/s. 54EC and also invested a sum of Rs.43,85,000/- in purchase of a flat in JNC Princes Park, Khasra No. 519, Mohiuddinpur, Kanawani, Noida and Rs. 48,90,000/- in another flat in Desire Residency, Khasra No. 520, Mohiuddinpur, Kanawani, Noida. The Assessing Officer observed that deduction

SANJAY CHOBEY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Acit, Circle –2(3)( 1), Dr. Sanjay Chobey, (Huf) Opp. Ware House, Shivpuri Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Nandpura, Jhansi 1090, Civil Lines, Pan : Aahhd7844 Q Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent)

90,500/- of his share of properties sold by the assessee as against the circle rates of State Government quoted during the year under consideration at Rs. 2,47,23,000/- of the properties as per the chart submitted along with the reply ITA 140/Agr/2018 4 filed before the AO (APB-Pgs,3-4); that in pari materia facts

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)

gain, disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of unexplained capital introduction and addition of Rs. 9,157/- under section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 to 3, the AO has made this addition, observing as the following:- “The assessee created as situation where by the assessment u/s 144 to the best

M/S RAMESHTHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-6, , JHANSI

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year - 2010-11

90 per cent of any receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges or any other receipt of a similar nature included in such profits ; and (c) profits of any branch, office, warehouse or any other establishment of the assessee situate outside India. (viii) The word "interest" in clause (baa) of the Explanation connotes "net interest" and not "gross

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such a condition which