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

Short Term Capital Gain. 5.11.1 For computation of Short Term Capital Gain in the assessment order

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

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

short term capital gains tax instead of long term capital gains tax and, therefore, the Assessing

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)

short term capital gains of Rs.2,32,800/- and observed that the capital gain declared by the assessee

BRIJESH PODDAR M/S KRISHAN KANHAIYA TEXTILES,HATHARS vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshri Brijesh Poddar (Prop), Vs. Ito, M/S. Krishna Kanhiya Ward-4(3)(4), Poddar Textile, Hanuman Hathras Gali, Hathras, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Azgpp1350B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

short-term capital gains on virtual digital assets. The assessee furnished the computation of short-term capital

SURESH CHANDRA SADH,NEW DELHI vs. CIRCLE 4(1)(1),, ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

short span of time. In view of these facts, the Assessing Officer disallowed the Long Term Capital Gains

GOVARDHAN SINGH,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

capital gains on the sale of immovable property and details of the relevant bank statement, were not submitted before the revenue authorities. Learned Assessing Officer, accordingly treated the entire sale consideration of Rs.89,20,000/- as short term

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA (HUF),AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshajay Kumar Gupta (Huf), Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-163/1, Kamla Nagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajha4155K Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

short-term capital gains on sale of silver at Rs. 6,06,669. The computation of short-term

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

short term capital gain earned by the assessee was to the tune of Rs.4,59,065/-. The assessee

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

short term capital gain earned by the assessee was to the tune of Rs.4,59,065/-. The assessee

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

short term capital gain earned by the assessee was to the tune of Rs.4,59,065/-. The assessee

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

short] dated 16/05/2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 246A by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before

RAMESH KUMAR SONI,SHIVPURI vs. AO, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Ramesh Kumar Soni, Vs. Ao, Near Nagar Palika, Gandhi Road, Neac Karera, Distt Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Azzps6156K Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

short term capital gain. The capital gain as shown by the appellant may kindly be accepted

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

term capital gains or short-term capital loss to various persons by converting their unaccounted income into

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" (whether relating to short-term capital assets or any other capital assets). (2A) Notwithstanding

GAYATRI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1)(5), AGRA

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

short] dated 04.03.2024 against the order of\nassessment passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as `the Act') dated 17.11.2017 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-\n2(1)(5), Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').\n2.\nThe only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the learned\nNFAC

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

short). 2. Brief facts of the case are that assesse is an individual and filed his return of income on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.18,35,16,990/- which was revised on 31.10.2015 at the same income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the long term capital gain

ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.52/Agr/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ashok Kumar Agarwal Acit, 6/26, Barah Bhai Ki Circle 2(1)(1), Vs. Gali, Belanganj, Agra-282002 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Abipa7741F (Appellant) (Respondent)

short). 2. Brief facts of the case are that assesse is an individual and filed his return of income on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.18,35,16,990/- which was revised on 31.10.2015 at the same income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the long term capital gain

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.11,81,680/- was offered. It was further noted by the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

short) arising out of the order passed u/s\n143(3) of the Act dated 10.03.2021.\n2. From the perusal of the record, it is found that the appeal is\nfiled delay by 239 days. With respect to the delay an affidavit is filed\nby the assessee along with separate application for condonation of\ndelay wherein it is stated that