RAGHUVENDRA KUMAR VARSHNEY,ALIGARH vs. I.T.O., WARD-1, ALIGARH

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Long Term Capital Gain shown by the appellant is arbitrary, wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case. 2.2 Because in any view, treating and computing the income during the relevant year by taking proceeds of all 15 Flats, against proceeds of 5 Flats belonging and shown by appellant (proceeds of 10 Flats belonging to the contractor

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Based on information received through Insight Portal and Income Tax Return filed by the appellant, the AO observed that for the year under consideration, the appellant had sold shares of M/s Delta Leasing & Finance Ltd for Rs.53,00,000/-, and had reported Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs.51

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

long-term capital gains. I am in agreement with the arguments advanced by the ld AR that assessee being purchaser of the property, could not be fastened with any tax liability under the head income from capital gains. The ld DR on this count submitted that mere mentioning of wrong section would not invalidate the addition per se. To buttress

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

68,000/-, in which assessee had 1/5th share, i.e., Rs.13,61,600/-. Letters were issued to the assessee for filing return of income, but the assessee neither filed any return nor submitted any reply. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which too remained un-responded. Statutory notices were also issued

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

68,000/-, in which assessee had 1/5th share, i.e., Rs.13,61,600/-. Letters were issued to the assessee for filing return of income, but the assessee neither filed any return nor submitted any reply. Case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which too remained un-responded. Statutory notices were also issued

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

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

long term capital gain on the basis of report of DVO.\nContention of the Assessee:The order passed by the AO u/s 154 is invalid as\nthe same is beyond the scope of Limited Scrutiny undertaken by the AO.\nHeld: Without converting the scrutiny from limited to complete by AO, the\nrectification order passed by AO will be nullity

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

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

Section 10(23C) on the requirement that a college must maintain the status- quo, as it were, in regard to its knowledge based infrastructure. Nor for that matter is an educational institution prohibited from upgrading its infrastructure on educational facilities save on the pain of losing the benefit of the exemption under Section 10(23C). Imposing such a condition which

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business

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)

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business