D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S PREM MOTORS PVT LTD., GWALIOR

The appeals of the department are dismissed

house and had added the difference between the market rent so calculated and rent which was being actually paid. The same result was reached in L. Bansidhar& Sons vs. CIT (1993) 109 CTR (Del) 62 : (1993) 201 ITR 655 (Del) where however it was clarified that the position stood changed with effect from the 1976 amendment, after which the actual

ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, GWALIOR

Appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.16/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Acit - Circle-2 बनाम/ F-11, Harishankar Puram Gwalior Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Circle-2 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta बनाम/ Gwalior F-11, Harishankar Puram Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

property to that entity. The same was disallowed by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same on the ground that there was no evidence that the interest was incurred for the purpose of house

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

Appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.16/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Acit - Circle-2 बनाम/ F-11, Harishankar Puram Gwalior Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Circle-2 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta बनाम/ Gwalior F-11, Harishankar Puram Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

property to that entity. The same was disallowed by Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same on the ground that there was no evidence that the interest was incurred for the purpose of house

RAVI KUMAR AGARWAL, HUF,AGRA vs. I.T.O.-2(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

house property and rent received for parking area as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the expenses

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect

HARI SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes treated as

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowing the claim made u/s 54F. 9. That the appellant has got the valuation report on Dt. 29-08-2015 from valuer with estimated cost Rs.320580/- of constructed house property

AKHLESH KUMAR TIWARI,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed by Assessing Officer and added to the declared income of assessee on the ground that the assessee did not file any purchase deed in support of his claim of purchasing new house property

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

house property, Remuneration and interest from Partnership firm and income from other sources. While framing reassessment order u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) dated 24.10.2019, the Assessing Officer made two additions – firstly, disallowance

BHARTI BANSAL,AGRA vs. DCIT-1, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

house property and income from other sources .The assessee participated in the assessment 7 | P a g e proceedings. Books of accounts of the assessee were produced which were verified by the Assessing Officer on test check basis.. I have observed that the assessee has expired and appeal is filed by the legal heir Smt. Bharti Bansal, wife

AKASH GOYAL,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

house property of Rs. Nil, interest and remuneration from partnership firm at Rs.2,03,113/- and interest income of Rs.29,45,261/- in his return of income. The AO has completed assessment at Rs.79,42,679/- as against the returned income of Rs.30,04,530/- u/s 143(3) of IT Act vide order dated 07.12.2017 wherein the only addition

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

House Property, Business, 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

SMT. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

property was located nor has done any enquiry/ investigation before issuing valuation report. 2.2. Because the AVO has not followed the procedure laid down in sub sections (2),(3),(4),(5) and (6) of section 16A, clauses (i) of sub section (1) and sub section (6) and (7) of section 23A, sub section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section

ANIL KUMAR GOYAL HUF,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year:2012-13

disallowance of exemption of Rs. 91,95,570/- and adding the same to the income of the assessee. 4. Because it has been held by several High Courts and the ITAT and particularly decision in the case of CIT V/s Sadarmal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR page 286 (Madras). Balraj V/s CIT (2002) 254 ITR page 22 Delhi. Sashi Verma

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

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

House, Agra PAN No. – AAALA0081F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Sunil Bajpai, CIT DR & Sh. Mazhar Akram, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 08.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2021 ORDER Per LALIET KUMAR J.M. ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 2 S. NO 1 GROUNDS OF APPEALS 2-20 2 BACK GROUND FACTS

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)

disallowance is again in utter disregard to the authoritative judicial pronouncements. The exemption u/s 11, being in accordance with report in 10B, may kindly be directed to be granted. 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 5,47,56,721/- being the receipts shown in 'infrastructure development fund

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)

disallowance is again in utter disregard to the authoritative judicial pronouncements. The exemption u/s 11, being in accordance with report in 10B, may kindly be directed to be granted. 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 5,47,56,721/- being the receipts shown in 'infrastructure development fund