MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT , FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis

TOMAR & BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

penalty levied. In this regard, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has made three disallowances – (A) adhoc disallowance of expenditure

KISHOR KUMAR GARG,JOURA ROAD, MORENA vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkishor Kumar Garg, Vs. Acit, Joura Road, Morena, Gwalior, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acopg5428J Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

penalty by the ld AO for an ad hoc disallowance is not warranted as the Kishor Kumar Garg disallowance per se would

D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S PNC INFRATECH LTD., AGRA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty of Rs.2,25,00,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.06.2019, holding the assessee to have concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. He further quotes (2024) 169 taxmann.com 16 (Delhi) Pawan Kumar Jaggi vs. ACIT to buttress the point that even in case of adhoc disallowances

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)

penalty in terms of section 270AA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed

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)

penalty in terms of section 270AA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed

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)

penalty in terms of section 270AA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed

VIPIN VERMA,ETAH vs. CIT(A) ALIGARH, ALIGARH

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.268/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Vipin Verma बनाम/ Vs. Ito-3(2) Patiyali Gate, Etah 207001 Etah. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acipv-2736-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 31-05-2024 In The Matter Of Penalty Levied By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Rs.1.77 Lacs On 22-06-2018. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared For Assessee. Accordingly, The Appeal Was Heard With The Able Assistance Of Ld. Sr. Dr Who Pleaded For Dismissal Of The Appeal.

disallowance of expenses. Consequently, impugned penalty was levied against the assessee. During appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that the receipt

GOPAL,ALIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalprincipal Gopal Commissioner Of Gali No.10, P-365/2, Vs. Income Tax-1, Near Haija Hospital, Agra Goolar Road, Uttar Pradesh-202001. Pan-Aempg0384B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

disallowance of Rs.1,19,889/- on account of GST penalty. It is further seen that during the course of assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITYA PANDEY, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- u/s. 80C & 80D of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act were also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITY PANDEY, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

disallowed Rs.2,00,000/- u/s. 80C & 80D of the Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act were also

DINESH CHAND KAUSHIK,ALIGARH vs. ITO, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2021-22

penalty proceedings u/s. 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income were also initiated, based on the addition of Rs.4,04,56,421/- made u/s. 41(1) of the Act on account of unexplained sundry creditors and addition of Rs.20,33,180/- made on account of disallowance

SATISH NARAYAN SHUKLA,PHAPHUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURAIYA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 54 and 54F amounting to Rs.12,22,705/- made by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.03.2022, the Assessing Officer levied penalty

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance of 51,282/- being 15% of office and travelling expenses on ad hoc basis, without appreciating the business necessity and absence of any finding of personal use. 9. BECAUSE, the additions/disallowances made are arbitrary, excessive and without proper appreciation of facts and evidence placed on record. 10. BECAUSE, the penalty

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance of expenditure without taking in to consideration and verifying the assessment record of the assessee which is against the principle of natural justice, is illegal and unsustainable in law, please be deleted 4 That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowances were made for want of furnishing\nof requisite evidences by the assessee before the Id AO. Before the Id CIT(A),\nthe assessee furnished additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income\nTax Rules. The additional evidences submitted by the assessee were not\nadmitted by the Id CIT(A) which lead to dismissal of appeal

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowances were made for want of furnishing\nof requisite evidences by the assessee before the Id AO. Before the Id CIT(A),\nthe assessee furnished additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income\nTax Rules. The additional evidences submitted by the assessee were not\nadmitted by the Id CIT(A) which lead to dismissal of appeal

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowances were made for want of furnishing\nof requisite evidences by the assessee before the Id AO. Before the Id CIT(A),\nthe assessee furnished additional evidences in terms of Rule 46A of the Income\nTax Rules. The additional evidences submitted by the assessee were not\nadmitted by the Id CIT(A) which lead to dismissal of appeal