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

revised u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by passing an order, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. V. You are hereby being granted final opportunity to furnish your explanation on each of the above mentioned issue(s) and issues mentioned in the Notice dated 27.10.2021, which

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

revised u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by passing an order, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. V. You are hereby being granted final opportunity to furnish your explanation on each of the above mentioned issue(s) and issues mentioned in the Notice dated 27.10.2021, which

AJIT SINGH,SHIVPURI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No 263/Agr/2025 is allowed

revision No PCIT,Gwalior/Revision-263/100000613485/2023 in exercise of his power u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act), wherein ld PCIT has held that the assessment order dated 22.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act, is erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and directed the assessing officer to conduct appropriate enquiries

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

gain. Also verification of properties sale transaction was\nalso the issue. Still this bench did not allow crossing the limit without obtaining\nprior permission.\nd) Sukhdham Infrastructure LLP v. Income Tax Officer (2024) 165\nTaxmann.com 154 (Kolkata Trib.)\nIssue:-There were four issues to verify (i) Interest Expenses (ii) Income from\nreal Estate Business (iii) Sales Turnover Mismatch

PRAMOD KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. PR. CIT , GWALIOR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 368/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Pramod Kumar Goyal Pr. Cit बनाम/ (Prop. M/S. Shreyansh Traders) Gwalior Chhutmal Ki Bajariya, Maina Wali Gali, Vs. Dal Bazar, Gwalior(Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Agspg-1575-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Navin Gargh, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gwalior (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2018 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 23-03-2016. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued Raising Various Queries Against The Assessee. The Assessee Claimed Exemption U/S 54B. Upon Perusal Of Computations & Various

263 by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior (Pr.CIT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide impugned order dated 23-03-2018 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23-03-2016. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under

ABHILASHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. JCIT RANGE-6 , JHANSI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains had been erroneously computed. According to the CIT (A), since this was agreed to by the AO, the assessee cannot grudge that if ultimately the income would get enhanced, still he ought to be heard. This, once more, is without any reasoning. The assessee had filed the rectification application seeking relief. It was not a self-inculpatory application

KUMKUM SAXSENA,FARRUKHABAD vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No. 43 /Agr/2022 (Assessment Year 2017-18)

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. We first advert to latter assessee Smt. Kumkum Saxena’s case ITA No. 44/Agra/2022 wherein the sole issue which arises for our apt adjudication is that of conversion of “limited” scrutiny assessment to a complete

SHRI GOPAL SAXENA,FARRUKHABAD vs. PCIT-1 , AGRA, AGRA

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No. 43 /Agr/2022 (Assessment Year 2017-18)

u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. We first advert to latter assessee Smt. Kumkum Saxena’s case ITA No. 44/Agra/2022 wherein the sole issue which arises for our apt adjudication is that of conversion of “limited” scrutiny assessment to a complete