BRIJRAJ KUMAR PANDEY,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 269SS and addition of Rs. 14,10,176/- made on account of long term capital gains on sale of property, by the Assessing Officer, vide separate penalty orders dated 16.09.2022, 28.09.2022 and assessment order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s. 272A(1)(d), sec. 271D and sec. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act respectively. 2. Perused the records and heard

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

condone the delay and admit the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd 3. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case

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

274 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, we are inclined to 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

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)

274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that arises

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)

274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that arises

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)

274 read with section 271(1)(c ) of the Act dated 30.12.2018 wherein it is very clear that the ld. AO had not specifically mentioned the offence committed by the assessee by striking off the irrelevant portion i.e. whether the assessee had concealed his particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Now the short question that arises

RAGHUVIR SINGH,GWALIOR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER , ITO GWALIOR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

sections 271(1)(c) and 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. We advert to the assessee’s quantum appeal ITA No. 205/Agr/2023. The delay of 131 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeals stands condoned

RAGHUVIR SINGH,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER ITO 1(3), GWALIOR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

sections 271(1)(c) and 274 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. We advert to the assessee’s quantum appeal ITA No. 205/Agr/2023. The delay of 131 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeals stands condoned