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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the facts, leading to the present appeal, are that the assessee filed his return of income in ITR-4S on 26.03.2018, declaring an income of Rs.3

SH. KULDEEP SRIVASTAVA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), MATHURA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

250/- in the names of Kanhiyalal ‘s sons. Kanhiyalal, the assesse’s managing partner, disavowed all knowledge as to the capacity of the creditors to advance the said amounts and, in fact, he admitted that the creditors had no independent source of income and he could not explain the said cash credits. The assesse, however, contended that the creditors

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

capital gain be determined. 2. The appellant craves leave to add amend any ground at the time or before hearing of appeal.” Ground No. 3 (Additional Legal Ground) "That the appellate order passed by the NFAC dated 30.03.2024 is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, they have passed the order without

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 250(4) of the Іпсоте Тах Act, in absence\nof which the appeal dismissed by the NFAC is highly unjustified,\nno addition is liable to be sustained, same is liable to be deleted.\n3.\nThat no capital gain

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)

4 | P a g e deposits with supporting cash flow/records; the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation on erroneous presumptions without bringing any cogent material on record. 7. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the addition of ₹2,32,800/- towards short-term capital gains by estimating/substituting the cost of acquisition

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

capital gain’ and further that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessment order ex parte in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) r.w.s. 250(4

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

capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase-sale details

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

capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase-sale details

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

capital gains are concerned. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee with regard to the sources of making investments to the tune of Rs. 32,30,790/-(peak investment) made by the assessee for conducting business of share trading as the assessee did not produce any documents such as demat account, purchase-sale details

SARITA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarmrs. Sarita Agrawal Acit Geeta Colony Aayakar Bhawan Dal Bazar, Gwalior- V. City Centre 474001 Gwalior-474001 Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk3445P Appellant .. Respondent

Section 250(4). The ld. CIT(A) has been vested with vast substantial powers under the 1961 Act, which even include power of enhancement. The ld. CIT(A) is obligated to state point for determination, his decisions and reasoning thereof, as is required u/s 250(6). The assessee has claimed in statement of fact and grounds of appeal filed with

PRIYAVRAT SHARMA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, herein after referred to as ‘the Act’, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal against the intimation order dated 15.07.2020 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 2. At the very outset, ld. AR has drawn the attention of the Bench towards assessee’s delay condonation application supported with affidavit

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the assessment order dated 29.09.2017 ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 19.03.2018 passed

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal, confirming the assessment order dated 29.09.2017 ITA No. 260 & 259/Agr/2025 passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 19.03.2018 passed

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), wherein the learned first appellate authority has confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the facts are that the appellant/assessee is a non-filer. Based on the information available on assessment records, the Assessing Officer noticed that

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

250 of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all these appeals are almost similar, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts

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

250 of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all these appeals are almost similar, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts

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

250 of the Act for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all these appeals are almost similar, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts

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]

4. BECAUSE, even otherwise, an order passed without effectively disposing of the grounds raised by the appellant is in infraction of section 250(6) of the Act and as such, order so made is otherwise too illegal, invalid and a vitiated order. 5. BECAUSE, upon due consideration of the matter and in the overall circumstances of the case

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]

250 of the Income Tax Act has been passed on 31.01.2024, against which the appeal is to be filed before the Hon ble ITAT within sixty days from the date of order passed by the NFAC. That the assessee could not have filed the appeal within the stipulated time allowed under the Income Tax Act. The assessee is filing