SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

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

38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases, vide assessment order dated 22.05.2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay

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

condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal before us:- Neeta Agarwal “1. 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

ITO WARD-1(1)(2), AGRA vs. MAMTA SINGH, AGRA

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Mamta Singh, Ward-1(1)(2), Agra 6, Amar Lok Colony, Opposite Jalma Hospital, Agra. (Appellant) Pan :Aobps 7284 K (Respondent)

condoned the delay and admitted the C.O. for hearing. The Learned A.R. was directed to proceed with his arguments. 4. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT [Appeals) has erred in law and on fact in deleting the entire impugned additions on technical grounds, and not on merits, without appreciating complete facts

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The following grounds have been raised: “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(l)(c) of the I. T. Act. 2. Because the assessee duly discharged her onus of proving the cash credits to be genuine. The addition

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Om Prakash Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Site No. 1, City Centre Ward 3(2), Gwalior Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India Pan : Agspg9180F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee. In this situation, the Bench adopts the lenient view for such 391 days delay in filing the appeal by the assessee in order to meet the overall justice, and admits the same as the Department has not raised any objection. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ITAT, raising following

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed a particular claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on certain items. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed a particular claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on certain items. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed a particular claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on certain items. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

10. 16/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11935A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gata, Distt. Bhind. 11. 17/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11848E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Lahar, Bhind 12. 18/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS11936B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gormi, Bhind 13- 12-15/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

10. 16/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11935A A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gata, Distt. Bhind. 11. 17/Ag/2018 State Bank of ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K City Center, BPLS11848E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Lahar, Bhind 12. 18/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of City Center, BPLS11936B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Gormi, Bhind 13- 12-15/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State