SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s 147 rws 144B of income tax Act, and sustained by Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not tenable on facts and law. 9. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the 'AO' and while sustaining addition Ld. 'CIT(A)' made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. 10. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing

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

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

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from

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

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

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from

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

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

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from

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

section 151 of the Act. The statutory notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s. 148 and subsequent notice issued u/s. 142(1) with questionnaire dated 15.11.2021 stood un-responded by the assessee. The assessee, however, submitted his reply dated 20.02.2022 in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 24.12.2021, which as per Assessing Officer, was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, show cause notice

ASSTT. COMMISSIOENER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AGRA, SANJAY PLACE AGRA vs. MAMTA AGARWAL, BHAGWATI INTERNATIONAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 29.05.2023 by the Assessing Officer,\nACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').\n8. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the\nId NFAC was justified in deleting the addition made on account

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of indexed cost\nof improvement as LTCG, made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment\norder dated 23.09.2022 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.\n2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second\nappeal on 12.03.2025 against the impugned order passed on 15.05.2024.\nThe reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay

BRIJESH PODDAR M/S KRISHAN KANHAIYA TEXTILES,HATHARS vs. ITO WARD 4(3)(4), HATHRAS

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshri Brijesh Poddar (Prop), Vs. Ito, M/S. Krishna Kanhiya Ward-4(3)(4), Poddar Textile, Hanuman Hathras Gali, Hathras, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Azgpp1350B Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Gargh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 12.03.2025 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-4(3)(4), Hathras (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the assessee would be entitled for deduction of Rs 5,74,560/- on account

SHAMIM QURESHI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhshamim Qureshi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 651/1, Cic Campus, Jhansi Jhokhan Bagh, Jhansi,Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajpq3427C Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 25.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before us by 385 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation

SUMIT KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sumit Kumar, Vs. Ito, Village Rampura, Ward-1(1)(2), Gwalior Road, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Buqpk7461L Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 27.08.2022 by the Assessing Officer, Agra (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the learned CIT(A) (NF AC) is bad based on the facts of the case as the appellant has purchased

SHYAMA SHYAM INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshyama Shyam Vs. Ito, Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd, Ward-2(1)(2), Khasra No. 961, Bhahistabad, Agra Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aatcs9899R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 18.05.2023 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld AO could be stated to have validly assumed jurisdiction

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]

144B of the Act, where he had reason to believe that income of Rs.89,20,000/- chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 2018-19 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. The information with the Assessing Officer was that the assessee had sold an immovable property to Sangwan Landco Pvt. Ltd. for a sale

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

144B of the Act and assessed an income of Rs.16,59,86,605/-. The 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

NARENDRA KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD, U.P.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2021-22]

144B of the Act as the assessee failed to respond to several notices/opportunities given by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown turnover of Rs.15,39,79,313/- in the profit & loss account as on 31.03.2021 but the GST return data of the showed turnover of Rs.17,20,88,327/- during the same period

SHUSHIL KUMAR GAUTAM,GABHANA ALIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 06.03.2023. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Because the assessment was wrongly reopened u/s 147 of the act. 2. Because the assessment order was wrongly passed u/s 144 of the act. 3. Because the Ld CIT(A) has erred