M/S CHATTA SUGAR CO. LTD,MATHURA vs. A.C.I..T CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

142(1) of the I.T. act, 1961, specifically asked the assessee as under:- “An amount of Rs.17,44,85,000 is received from Uttar Pradesh Government against payment of farmers in respect of outstanding cane dues. Please justify this grant why not be treated as revenue receipt." 2.2. The assessee vide letter dated 30.11.2011 submitted its explanation as under

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since the unsecured loans were utilized for making investment in the partnership firm from where income in the form of interest and remuneration was earned and offered for tax in the income-tax return. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

142 (1) shall\nremain confined only to the specific reasons/ issues for which case has been\npicked up for scrutiny.\n(iii) To overcome this issue of elasticity in application of instruction,CBDT made\ncertain provisions. To prevent revenue leakage, AOs are allowed to convert\nlimited scrutiny to complete scrutiny and this power is allowed to them after\nfollowing certain

YOGENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) GWL, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 50(C) of the Income Tax Act. The addition made, computing the long term capital gain by the AO, sustained by the NFAC is liable to be deleted." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year ,on 02.08.2017 , declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Return was processed

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

142(1) dated 23.07.2019 the A.O. had asked for the Cash Flow Statement for the Assessee as per point no. 1(d) in both of these Notices and the assessment was completed at the Returned Income without the Assessee having filed the Cash Flow Statement. Thus, inquiry relating to cash deposits and cash flow was initiated

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

142(1) dated 23.07.2019 the A.O. had asked for the Cash Flow Statement for the Assessee as per point no. 1(d) in both of these Notices and the assessment was completed at the Returned Income without the Assessee having filed the Cash Flow Statement. Thus, inquiry relating to cash deposits and cash flow was initiated

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)

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has declared income from salary of Rs.1,74,000/- and income from business of Rs.1,38,500/- against gross receipts of Rs.4,50,000/-. Besides above, the assessee has declared nil income from capital gains

GOVARDHAN SINGH,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

142(1) of the Act and also filed the details of sale consideration of the immovable property sold. However, the transaction details, e.g., purchase/sale deed, supporting vouchers/ledgers, computation of income, calculation of capital gains on the sale of immovable property and details of the relevant bank statement, were not submitted before the revenue authorities. Learned Assessing Officer, accordingly treated

SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,MAURANIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHANSI

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s response, Assessing Officer determined the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against

SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JHANSI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s response, Assessing Officer determined the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against

SURENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,MAURANIPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result, ITA No. 80 and 255/Agr/2025 are allowed for statistical

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering assessee’s response, Assessing Officer determined the long-term capital gain at Rs.1,14,71,483/- and added it to the income of the assessee. 2 | P a g e ITA Nos. 80, 255 & 278/Agr/2025 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) against

RAKESH DUBEY,KATRA MOHOLLA OLD BUS STAND ASHOKNAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS , NFAC DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

gain on the sale of the aforesaid property. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021, which stood un-responded. Thereafter, notices u/s. 142(1) were issued to the assessee on 08.02.2022 and 18.02.2022, which were served upon the assessee, but for no avail. The Assessing Officer further, vide notice

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

142(1) of the Act on 29-06-2021, 10-12-2021 and 11-1-2022 to furnish the requisite reply. Since there was no response from the side of the assessee, the assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act by the Learned AO. In the reassessment order, the Learned AO noted that assessee

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank. The assessee submitted

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank. The assessee submitted

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank. The assessee submitted

RAMESHWAR DAYAL, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2),GWALIOR , GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Rameshwar Dayal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Chitrkoot Ward-3(2), Colony, Near Fojawali Gwalior School, Kotputli, Jaipur, 303 108, Rajasthan (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Devang Gargiega, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

section 142(1) of the Act which was also not responded to. Finally a show cause notice was issued proposing an addition of Rs 10,05,000/- on account of cash deposits for want of explanation for source, there was no compliance. Hence the Learned AO was compelled to frame the assessment by making an addition

RAMKISHAN,ALIGARH vs. ITO 4(1)(3) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

section 147 of the Act. The information with the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had sold an immovable property to Sangwan Landco Pvt. Ltd. for a sale consideration of Rs.89,20,000/-. In response to to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee in his reply dated 02.12.2022 stated that the immovable property sold was an agricultural