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)

Gains of business or Profession” or “ Income from other & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017 7 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) sources”. The completion of assessment under Chapter IV and invoking provisions of section 145(3) is wholly illegal in the case of the appellant which is enjoying registration u/s 12A. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

section 2(14) of the Act. Finding no details of capital gain tax on sale of immovable property, learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer framed his reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and with the prior approval of the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax u/s. 151

USHA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ITO 4(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2, Kamla Nagar, Agra, sold the property on 02.12.2006 for Rs. 14,00,000/- whereas, its valuation for the purpose of stamp duty was at Rs. 17,40,000/- thus taking into the value according to section 50C of the Act, taking its purchase cost, the net capital gain does arise above the taxable limit prevailing in the year

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

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

151 as expenditure which was carried out of infrastructure fund. (8) Because· the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs39,34, 135 in respect of old outstanding entries in bank reconciliation statement. (9) Because the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 36,31,60,509 in respect of liabilities shown under

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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, a draft

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

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

capital gain in view of the Karnataka High Court's decision referred to above. What Page 15 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO income is said to have been escaped does not find mention therein. Even assuming for the sake of argument, the income was liable to be taxed as short term gain unless there is any material before

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

2) of section 151 has been taken by the Assessing officer, hence the reopening, in the absence of approval is bad in law. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the grounds raised before the Tribunal have been raised for the first time and were not raised before the lower authorities. It was, therefore, submitted that

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)

capital gains, he observed that the assessee has filed a valuation report of the property at Rs.11,14,000/-. Same was reproduced in the appellate order from page 12 to page 15 of the order. Based on the above valuation, after giving notice to the assessee and after considering submissions of the assessee, learned CIT(Appeals) enhanced the additions made

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued notices u/s.148A(b) of the Act [refer Page No.1 of the Paper Book] on 14.03.2022. Pursuant thereto, the assessee filed his reply to the said notice

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

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the sanction giving by the Ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 151 of I.T.Act, 1961 whereas it was wrong, giving in the mechanical manner without application of independent mind. 3. That

CHET RAM VERMA,ETAH vs. ITO WARD-3(1), ETAH

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

151 of the I.T Act has not been obtained. The approval, if any, is a mechanical approval which is bad in law. On this legal ground also the assessment deserves to be quashed. 4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the head Capital Gain -applying the provisions

BHEEKAM SINGH,FIRZOBAD vs. ITO-2(2)(2)(1), FIRZOBAD

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

2. Because the notice under section 148 has been issued without obtaining sanction as envisaged under section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and application of mind. 3. Because the learned authorities below have erred both on facts and in law in not appreciating that the amount deposited in the bank account of the assessee

ANIL KUMAR YADAV LEGAL HEIR SMT. LONG SHREE ,MAINPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(2)(4), MAINPURI

2)(4)\n(L/H Smt. Long Shree)\nबनाम /\nMainpuri\nMain Bazar, Karhal\nVs.\nMainpuri 205001\nस्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAAPY-8480-E\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nअपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant by: Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. AR\nप्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent by: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava - Ld. Sr. DR\nसुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing\n20-02-2025\nघोषणाकीतारीख / Date of Pronouncement

SHIV SINGH,AGRA vs. ITO WARD-6(2), JHANSI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08

2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee has raised additional legal ground in the instant appeal challenging validity of reopening without providing him section 151 approval. We note that said approval is nowhere found in the case records. The assessee’s instant additional ground rejected in light