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

94[***] 95[96[54D, 97[54E, 98[54EA, 54EB,] 54F 99[, 54G and 54H]]]]], be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Capital gains”, and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.” 30. From the conjoint reading of the above said, it is clear that, if a capital asset

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

94[***] 95[96[54D, 97[54E, 98[54EA, 54EB,] 54F 99[, 54G and 54H]]]]], be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Capital gains”, and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.” 30. From the conjoint reading of the above said, it is clear that, if a capital asset

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

94[***] 95[96[54D, 97[54E, 98[54EA, 54EB,] 54F 99[, 54G and 54H]]]]], be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Capital gains”, and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.” 30. From the conjoint reading of the above said, it is clear that, if a capital asset

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

7. 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 action of the learned AO regarding initiation of provision of penalty u/s 271(1) of I.T.Act, 1961 in the appellant case. 8. That the appeal as well as assessment order are against

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

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

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

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

capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land, and it would be taxable in the Assessment Year corresponding to the Financial Year when the actual sale deeds were executed, i.e., FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19), not FY 2009-10 (AY 2010-11) when the advance was received. Therefore, the invocation of Section

SURESH SINGH,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD-1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10

capital gain and the benefit of indexed cost should be allowed.” 2. The assessee has filed an application for admission of additional grounds, which are as under : “1. Because the addition made by the Assessing Officer invoking provisions of Section 50C of the I.T Act and confirmed by Ld, CIT(A) is wrong, bad in law, unjustified and without jurisdiction

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

94,720/-. It is this assessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act which has been held to be erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of revenue by the ld. PCIT in the impugned order before us passed u/s 263 of the Act. 6. Ld. PCIT, on perusal of record of assessment, noted several discrepancies therein, which find listed

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

94,720/-. It is this assessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act which has been held to be erroneous causing prejudice to the interest of revenue by the ld. PCIT in the impugned order before us passed u/s 263 of the Act. 6. Ld. PCIT, on perusal of record of assessment, noted several discrepancies therein, which find listed

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

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

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

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

Gains of business or Profession" or " Income from other sources". The completion of assessment under Chapter IV and invoking provisions of section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant. 6. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition

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

94,000/- received from Smt Shashi Bansal as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act for not proving the creditworthiness of the donor. 5. With regard to gift received from Smt Manju Agarwal, sister of the assessee in the sum of Rs 6,25,000/-, the assessee submitted that the said amount was transferred by Smt Manju Agarwal

ITO 1(1)(1)(5), AGRA vs. SHANTI CONSTRUCTIONS , AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaincome Tax Officer, Ward,1(1)(5), Vs.. M/S Shanti Constructions, Ug-13, Aayakar Bhawan, Agra Shanti Madhuvan Plaza, Delhi Gate, Agra (Appellant) (Pan: Aaufs3185N) (Respondent)

94,62,580 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) as against returned income shown by the assessee of Rs. 1,12,120. The AO has observed that the assessee did not produce bills/vouchers before him for ascertaining the accuracy and correctness of the books of account; that it did not furnish evidence regarding