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)

u/s 147 of the Act, of the long term capital gain, as per order dated 21.03.2016, as above, is under appeal before the ld. CIT(A); that thus, the sum of Rs.12,50,000/- credited in the assessee’s bank account on 31.12.2007 has been included twice, once for estimating the income of the assessee from Rasleela, and again

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

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

capital gains arise in the case of assessee and the AO merely accepted truth in vague information in a mechanical manner and put the assessee under obligation to file reply to the same. Merely because no reply was filed, the AO acted in haste and initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the IT Act without recording satisfaction for initiation of proceedings

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)

147 is illegal and without jurisdiction as there was no tangible material to form a valid 'reason to believe that income had escaped assessment; the Assessing Officer failed to make any independent enquiry or application of mind and acted on mere borrowed satisfaction/suspicion. 3. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the Assessing Officer erred

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

u/s 147 of the IT Act was raised before the AO, it cannot be taken up at this stage. Para 9.1 of the impugned order, however, shows this issue to have been raised before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, this objection is rejected. 3. Apropos ground Nos. 1 & 2, the assessee contends that the AO had no material with

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

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 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

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

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 16.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. One of the ground raised before me is that the learned NFAC had mechanically confirmed the order of the ld AO without giving his independent findings