SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

31,032 while computing the Tax 26AS, which were either on record or available on portal 5 That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 17,78,091/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the head "Income from House Property". The addition was made without properly considering the facts

RAJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(3), MATHURA

In the result appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. Pan: Akvpr1777Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income of the assessee

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

31,450/- by allowing deduction u/s 54B of the Act of I.T.A No.440/Agra/2017 3 Rs.1,70,000/- in lieu of investment made in the agricultural land out of a 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

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(flat) for which the appellant claimed benefit of section 54F of the Act was not even started within three years from the date of transfer and even till date the appellant has not got the possession of any flat in place of flat booked with the builder, I am therefore in all agreement with the findings

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)

31 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) submitted that the tribunal by the to various orders have given quietus to the to the dispute with respect to entitlement of the assessee for registration under section 12 AA of the act. For that purposes of attention were drawn to various decision passed by the tribunal cancelling the order passed

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)

31 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) submitted that the tribunal by the to various orders have given quietus to the to the dispute with respect to entitlement of the assessee for registration under section 12 AA of the act. For that purposes of attention were drawn to various decision passed by the tribunal cancelling the order passed

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)

31 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) submitted that the tribunal by the to various orders have given quietus to the to the dispute with respect to entitlement of the assessee for registration under section 12 AA of the act. For that purposes of attention were drawn to various decision passed by the tribunal cancelling the order passed

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

house was quashed. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the ld. AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat ld. AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income

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

Section 50C, the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was deemed to be the full value of the consideration received as a result of the transfer and thus, the difference of Rs. 62,48,400/- (Rs. 1,16,65,000/- less Rs. 54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner

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

Section 50C, the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was deemed to be the full value of the consideration received as a result of the transfer and thus, the difference of Rs. 62,48,400/- (Rs. 1,16,65,000/- less Rs. 54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

property, to curry out building, engineering, mining and oilier operations, to execute works in connection with the supply of water and electricity, to dispose of sewage and to provide and maintain other services and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for purposes of such development and for purposes incidental thereto:” 6. The CIT(A) has rejected

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

31, Prabhu Nagar nar Jai Gurudev Temple Mathura – 281004 PAN No.AEAPL1039C (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Sh. Vishnu Kumar, C.A.& Sh. Abhishek Agrawal, C.A. Revenue by Mazhar Akram, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 02.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement 02.02.2021 ORDER Per LALIET KUMAR, J.M. Present appeal is being filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT Appeal

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

31, Prabhu Nagar nar Jai Mathura Gurudev Temple Mathura – 281004 (Revenue) PAN No.EALPS1745H (Assessee) Assessee by Sh. Vishnu Kumar, C.A.& Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. Revenue by Mazhar Akram, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 02.02.2021 Date of 02.02.2021 Pronouncement ORDER Per LALIET KUMAR, J.M. Present appeal is being filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed

MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

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

property or of the unit holder, or of the shareholder as the case may be, and credit shall be given to him for the amount so ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 18 deducted in production of the certificate furnished under section 203 in the assessment made under this act for the assessment year for which such income is assessed. From

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

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

31 Comptroller and Auditor General of India or to any other Auditor on such terms and conditions, in such manner, for such period and at such times as may be agreed upon between him and the State Government.------------- 5[26-A. Encroachment or obstruction on public land.- (1) Whoever makes any encroachment on any land not being private property, whether

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

31 of the order contending that such addition could not have been made, just on the basis of retracted statement, which is not justified and also our contention was that, since it was digital data, the compliance to section 65B of the I.T. Act 2002 does not appear to have been made and also in our submissions before

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

31 of the order contending that such addition could not have been made, just on the basis of retracted statement, which is not justified and also our contention was that, since it was digital data, the compliance to section 65B of the I.T. Act 2002 does not appear to have been made and also in our submissions before

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

31 of the order contending that such addition could not have been made, just on the basis of retracted statement, which is not justified and also our contention was that, since it was digital data, the compliance to section 65B of the I.T. Act 2002 does not appear to have been made and also in our submissions before