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

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

50,000/-. These additions/ disallowances were made for want of furnishing\nof requisite evidences by the assessee before the Id AO. Before the Id CIT(A),\nthe assessee furnished additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income\nTax Rules. The additional evidences submitted by the assessee were not\nadmitted by the Id CIT(A) which lead to dismissal

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)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50

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)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50

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)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50

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

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

50,000/-. These additions/ disallowances were made for want of furnishing\nof requisite evidences by the assessee before the Id AO. Before the Id CIT(A),\nthe assessee furnished additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income\nTax Rules. The additional evidences submitted by the assessee were not\nadmitted by the Id CIT(A) which lead to dismissal

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

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

50,000/-. These additions/ disallowances were made for want of furnishing\nof requisite evidences by the assessee before the Id AO. Before the Id CIT(A),\nthe assessee furnished additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income\nTax Rules. The additional evidences submitted by the assessee were not\nadmitted by the Id CIT(A) which lead to dismissal

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

SAROJ,MAINPURI vs. I.T.O WARD 2(5), MAINPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

house wife and also submitted copy of power of attorney dated 20.03.2012 and copy of sale deed of two immovable properties sold by Sh. Sugriv Singh on 07.11.2012 for Rs.10,50,000/- and Rs.4,45,000/-. It was submitted that the power of attorney was given by her husband to Shri Sugriv Singh to sell the immovable property

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)

sections 234A/234B/234C is wrong and without prejudice; the initiation of penalty proceedings, if any, is unwarranted. 12. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary or withdraw any ground of appeal and to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing.” 5 | P a g e 6. At the time of hearing, assessee has brought to my notice

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

50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received has been disclosed at only Rs. 54,16,600/- by the 2 co-owners i.e. Dr. Sarika Srivastava

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

50,100/- plus Rs. 31.66,500/-). Thus, the value of the 2 plots sold by the Assessee as co-owner u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounts to Rs. 1,16,65,000/-, but the sale consideration received has been disclosed at only Rs. 54,16,600/- by the 2 co-owners i.e. Dr. Sarika Srivastava

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)

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs. 42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on 15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to the tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is substantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

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)

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs. 42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on 15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to the tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is substantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

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)

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs. 42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on 15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to the tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is substantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SH. VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL, AGRA

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs.\n42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on\n15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to\nthe tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is\nsubstantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE RANGE CENTRAL, AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

50% shareholding in assessee-company was main person of that entity. These pages contained similar type of information. Therefore, the relied seized material was found and seized from the premises being controlled by the main stakeholders of the assessee company. Such seized material was utilized in search proceedings of the assessee which were initiated u/s 153A

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

50% shareholding in assessee-company was main person of that entity. These pages contained similar type of information. Therefore, the relied seized material was found and seized from the premises being controlled by the main stakeholders of the assessee company. Such seized material was utilized in search proceedings of the assessee which were initiated u/s 153A

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RANGE CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

50% shareholding in assessee-company was main person of that entity. These pages contained similar type of information. Therefore, the relied seized material was found and seized from the premises being controlled by the main stakeholders of the assessee company. Such seized material was utilized in search proceedings of the assessee which were initiated u/s 153A