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

house, a long term capital gain of Rs.91,95,570/- was accrued to the assessee after deduction of the cost of indexation. 2.1 The assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 54F, as the assessee had invested an amount of Rs. 1,13,76,245/- for the purchase of a residential flat bearing Flat No. E- 1601, 16th Floor in the building

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)

term capital gains by estimating/substituting the cost of acquisition is bad in law and on facts. The Assessing Officer could not have adopted an estimated cost in place of the Appellant's evidenced cost without any reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) under section 55A; mere estimation is impermissible. 8. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances

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

long term capital gain of Rs.4,01,454/- on sale of an immovable property, where the assessee did not file any return of income. 3. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO noted in the assessment order that the claim of Rs.3,25,000/- made by the appellant assessee in respect of construction of a house

ACIT 2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MADHUKAR KAPUR, AGRA

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 429/Agr/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 ) Acit- 2(1)(1) बनाम/ Shri Madhukar Kapoor Agra. 64, Surya Nagar, Agra. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acnpk-8849-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Agra [Cit(A)] On 26-03-2015 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 28-02- 2014. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Qua Grant Of Deduction U/S 54 / 54F. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Adjudicated As Under. 2. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Assessed Capital Gains On Sale Of Certain House Property For Rs.454.98 Lacs Which Was Not Shown By The Assessee In The Return Of Income. The Assessee Sold His 2/3Rd Share Of Land Situated At 5/161, Saunth Ki Mandi, Agra To M/S Mahim Patran Pvt. Ltd. (Mppl) In Which The Assessee Acted As A Director. The Total

terms of the provision of Sec.53A of Transfer of Property Act, held that the sale of property was completed during this year and the resultant gains would be assessable to capital gains. The assessee explained that the said property was given to MMPL as a tenant since a long time and it continued to be tenant even after the execution

GURDEEP SINGH,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1,, AGRA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmagurdeep Singh Vs. The Pr. Cit-1 33, Laxmi Nagar, Sikandra, Agra Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282007 Pan No. Aflps 7500 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Verma, Adv. Revenue By Shri Surendra Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2023

long term capital asset (not being a residential house), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date of transfer, purchased, or has within a period of three years after the date of transfer, constructed, one residential house in India, the capital gain shall not be charged

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

house property was shown as Rs.81,799/- and income from capital gain at Rs.89,653/-. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 148 and provided the reasons for reopening. Therefore, the reply was sought and after considering the reply, the Assessing Officer concluded the 6 assessment proceedings by making addition of Rs.38,18,000/- being the difference in the amount

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)

House, Shivpuri Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Nandpura, Jhansi 1090, Civil Lines, PAN : AAHHD7844 Q Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P.K. Sahgal, Advocate And Shri Utsav Sahgal, C.A. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.07.2018 ORDER Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order

RENU GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. JCIT- RANGE -2, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

house property, business & profession, capital gain and income from other sources. She filed her return of income on 29.07.2011, declaring total income at Rs. NIL. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued

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

long-term capital gain of Rs.7,33,457/-, claiming its deduction u/s. 54F of the Act on the ground that the assessee had invested Rs.25,85,000/- in purchase of new residential property. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, in response to which the assessee filed return of income

FAHEEM PARVEZ,JHANSI vs. ITO -2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, for statistical purpose, appeals allowed

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

long term capital gain and of Rs. 4,33,333/- u/s 69C is illegal and arbitrary. 3. That the sale deed dated 02.1 1 .2012 the stamp value of which was Rs. 74281000/- in which the assessee has 1/1211 shares included the value of property sold as per registered deed dated 15.05.2012 of Rs. 5560000/- also, the benefit of which

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

House or the quantum of investment in the same is available on record, and hence excess deduction has been allowed. Not only the deduction was wrongly allowed but also no inquiry was done during the Assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Perusal of the case record further shows that the Assessee has filed the copy

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

House or the quantum of investment in the same is available on record, and hence excess deduction has been allowed. Not only the deduction was wrongly allowed but also no inquiry was done during the Assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Perusal of the case record further shows that the Assessee has filed the copy

SH. SUNIL AGARWAL,JHANSI vs. I.T.O.-6(3), JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Long term capital gain was assessed by the AO under section 54F of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order. I.T.A No. 284/Agra/2016 3 4. A copy of the sale deed dated 29.03.2012 (APB 15 to 32), by way of which the assessee sold the property, has been filed before this Bench. In this deed

KAMAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. CIT A -1, AGRA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

House is erroneous and incorrect based on facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend, modify, delete any of ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing. FACTS 1. In this case, as per the AR the assessment was completed under section 144/147 of the Act by the assessing

LAKHAN LAL ,MATHURA vs. CIT A-1, AGRA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

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

House is erroneous and incorrect based on facts and circumstances of the case. IV. That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend, modify, delete any of ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 1. In this case, as per the AR the assessment was completed under section 144/147 of the Act by the assessing officer

LATA SHARMA,AGRA vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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]

House No.1121, Ward-2(1)(2), Bassachalu, Tarrakpu Poiya, Vs Agra Agra, Uttar Pradesh-283126 PAN-IBZPS9821M Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Gagan Bahgel, Adv. Respondent by Shri Shailender Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated

USHA YADAV,ETAWAH vs. ITO 2(2)(5)- ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2019-20 Usha Yadav Vs. Ito, D/O Shri Ummad Singh Mitra Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah Puram Colony, Bharthana Road, Etawah Pan : Agzpy7652F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

long term capital gain of Rs 19,90,454. a. That learned CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in law and facts in sustaining the value of plot at Rs 20,08,000 (circle value) in place of actual sale consideration of Rs 11,30,000 without considering the request of the appellant for verification of value 1 of the said

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

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

long as the institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for profit, the test is met." 25. We approve the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana, Delhi and Bombay High Courts. Since we have set aside the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court and since the Chief CIT's orders cancelling exemption which were set aside by the Punjab