SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

capital gain on this transaction and having not responded to the AO’s requisition in this regard, the assessee’s completed assessment was reopened and a reassessment order was passed on 21.03.2016, assessing long term

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

long-term capital gains arising from the transaction. On the basis of the information received by the Deputy Director (Investigation), the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148. The files were then put up before the Commissioner and in response to the question whether the Commissioner was satisfied that income had escaped assessment, he wrote “yes”. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

long-term capital gain, in response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30-03-2021. The reassessment

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)

reassessment is further vitiated as the mandatory previous sanction under section 151 was not supplied to the appellant despite request, and in any case appears to have been obtained mechanically without due application of mind; absence of a valid sanction renders the notice and consequent assessment void. 5. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case there

RUBY JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

long-term capital gains or short-term capital loss to various persons by converting their unaccounted income into accounted income. Admittedly, HPC Biosciences Ltd was one of the scrip investigated by Kolkata Investigation Wing. Based on this investigation report, the ld Assessing Officer concluded that the sale proceeds received by the assessee on sale of 2800 shares of HPC Biosciences

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jainassessment Year: 2002-03

Long Term Capital Gain, Share application money, share money, gifts etc. On enquiries it has been found that modus operandi of M/s. Ayushi Stok Brokers (P) Ltd., Sanjay Place, Agra is to take cash from the beneficiary (assessee), deposit the same in one or more of various accounts maintained or controlled by one Sh. R.K. Agarwal, then the money

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Long Term Capital Gain and claiming exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act. Assessee’s 2 | P a g e case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the appellant after obtaining necessary approvals and after following the due procedure of law. Show-cause Notice dated 27-03-2022, wherein

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

reassessment proceedings, in my opinion, is not correct.” We do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, grounds Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 are dismissed. 7. Grounds Nos. 2.1 to 2.3 are on merits. The assessee, Smt. Bina Wadhva filed the return of income declaring income at Rs.1,59,570/- for the assessment year

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)

reassessment has to be annulled. The matter cannot be set aside to the AO for second chance.” 4. The sole grievance of the assessee is regarding adoption of value of property at the circle rates of the State Government as against value of sale consideration disclosed by the assessee. ITA 140/Agr/2018 3 5. During the course of assessment proceeding

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

long term capital gain addition of Rs. 1738000/-. 8. That the C.I.T. (Appeal) has failed to appreciate if the cost of acquisition is taken at zero then there is no question of any capital gain and addition sustained by the C.I.T. (Appeal) is arbitrary and illegal. 9. That the C.I.T. (Appeal) has erred on facts and in law to sustain

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

long term capital gain on sale of land in Profit and loss account, but no enquiry was made 9 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 by the Assessing Officer with respect to the same nor were deeds of purchase and sale of the land available on record. The assessee was also noted to have sold a portion of “Land

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

long term capital gain on sale of land in Profit and loss account, but no enquiry was made 9 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 by the Assessing Officer with respect to the same nor were deeds of purchase and sale of the land available on record. The assessee was also noted to have sold a portion of “Land

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

capital gain I was earned by the assessee from the sale of his share in immovable property. Notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee for 30 March 2017, no compliance was made by the assessee and therefore the assessing officer had made the reassessment proceedings by proceeding ex parte and had taxed the long-term

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

reassessment proceedings by proceeding ex parte and had taxed the long-term capital gain amount ₹ 11,61,310/- 2. feeling

GUMAN SINGH KUSHWAH,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

long term capital gains at Rs 11,40,000 and completed the reassessment. The assessee challenged the reassessment order before