ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. ROYAL AUTOMOBILES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: The Ao.

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, during the relevant financial year, in spite of the facts on records that the assessee has failed to produce any admissible evidence during the course of assessment proceeding before the AO. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

Dividend income of Rs.3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed

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

Dividend income of Rs.3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Dividend income of Rs.3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Dividend income of Rs.3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed

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

Dividend income of Rs.3,00,000 and Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act claimed for Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.4,99,59,467 on sale of shares are hereby deleted and these grounds of appeal are allowed.” 13. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

disallowing the said payment and prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), which is contrary to the Apex Court decision in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. (supra). 8. Learned AR has submitted that the issue is directly covered by various judgments of ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court and referred the following decisions

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

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

disallowed by the High Court at Calcutta. On appeal to the Privy Council, Lord Macmillan observed as follows : "But their Lordships do not agree with the learned Chief Justice in his rejection of the view that the sums paid by the appellant to his step-mother were not ‘income' of the appellant at all. This is their Lordships' opinion

MONIKA RATHORE,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

dividend earned from USA to the tune of Rs.604/- apart from tax deducted by Google Germany on salary earned in Germany from 15.10.2022 to 31.03.2023, which was also declared in Form No. 67 filed on 02.05.2024 and total FTC of Rs.10,95,293/- was claimed but both the authorities below have denied the credit of the aforesaid foreign tax credit

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)

deemed fit at the time of hearing of appeal.” The grounds of the assessee’s are as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- II, Agra, hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’ erred, both in law and on facts, in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting status of the appellant as AOP/BOI. . 2. Because

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)

deemed fit at the time of hearing of appeal.” The grounds of the assessee’s are as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- II, Agra, hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’ erred, both in law and on facts, in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting status of the appellant as AOP/BOI. . 2. Because

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)

deemed fit at the time of hearing of appeal.” The grounds of the assessee’s are as under:- “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- II, Agra, hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’ erred, both in law and on facts, in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in adopting status of the appellant as AOP/BOI. . 2. Because

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

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 4,00,00,000 option 8% RBI Bond Non- Cumulative