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

short ‘the ld. CIT(A)], dated 31.08.2017 for A.Y. 2009-10 where assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Because the Ld CIT (Appeal) has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the order passed by the AO. u/s/144/147 was in order without considering the facts that no capital gains I.T.A No.440/Agra/2017

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

short term capital loss of Rs.51,050/- and on sale of second plot, he claimed 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

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

house property of Rs. 1,59,600 and interest income of Rs.6,18,636. The assessee case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The assessee has deposited SBN of Rs. 1,51,04,500 in her bank account maintained in Canara Bank having account number 0322101027093 which was nothing but the sale proceeds of silver bullion disclosed under

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

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

short 'Act') dated 31.03.2022 was passed by the JAO. It is also not in dispute that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 was issued by the JAO. This issue is no longer in res- integra it view of the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Loganathan Dhandapani vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2240/Chny/2024 for A.Y.2018-19 dated

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

short 'Act') dated 31.03.2022 was passed by the JAO. It is also not in dispute that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 31.03.2022 was issued by the JAO. This issue is no longer in res- integra it view of the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Loganathan Dhandapani vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2240/Chny/2024 for A.Y.2018-19 dated

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

short 'Act') dated 27.03.2022 was passed by the JAO. It is also not in dispute that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 27.03.2022 was issued by the JAO. This issue is no longer in res-integra in view of the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Loganathan Dhandapani vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2240/Chny/2024 for A.Y.2018-19 dated

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

short 'Act') dated 26.03.2022 was passed by the JAO. It is also not in dispute that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 26.03.2022 was issued by the JAO. This issue is no longer in res- integra in view of the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Loganathan Dhandapani vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2240/Chny/2024 for A.Y.2018-19 dated

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

short 'Act') dated 22.03.2024 was passed by the JAO. It is also not in dispute that the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 22.03.2024 was issued by the JAO. This issue is no longer in res- integra in view of the decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of Loganathan Dhandapani vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2240/Chny/2024 for A.Y.2018-19 dated

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

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

housing to its citizen at reasonable rate. “State” function includes the collection of taxes/fees for meeting the finances in carrying out the above said duties/functions of the “state”. It is noteworthy that a portion of state revenues like stamp duty, besides other funds from the Government is diverted to the ADA primarily for the development of infrastructure in the city