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

3. 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 addition of Rs. 95,20,372 under section 68 of the Act, 1961 whereas in the appellant case section 68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances

NITESH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), AGRA

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accoutant Member Nitesh Agarwal Vs Income Tax 29/81, Lakshmi Palace, Officer-2(1) (3), Namakkimandi, Agra- Agra 282003 Pan No Abnpa2197G Appellant Respondent

3), NamakkiMandi, Agra- AGRA 282003 PAN NO ABNPA2197G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by: Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department by : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18/02/2026 Date of pronouncement 20/02/2026 ORDER The Assessee has filed this appeal against the order of ld CIT Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), letter dated 30th September 2025 Assessee has filed following grounds

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

234B is incorrectly charged.” 3. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2 | P a g e 4. It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have made section 69A addition of Rs.1,51,04,500/- in assessee’s hands thereby rejecting her explanation

GOVIND PRASAD,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(5), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

section 234B is wrong and the same in any case are unreasonable and excessive.” Brief facts of the case:- In this case, vide order u/s 143(1) of the Act, CPC, Bangalore, 3. determined the total income at Rs.15,09,380/- against the return of income of Rs.9,33,380/- by making the addition of Rs.5,76,000/- Long Term