SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 147 of the Act. Even though counsel for the assessee submitted that when the claim was allowed in the original assessment any proposal for subsequent disallowance

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

147 read with Section 143(3) dated 24.10.2019, the Assessing Officer made two additions – firstly, disallowance of Rs.12,15,413/- claimed

JAWAHAR LAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

disallowing deduction u/s 54B of the I.T. Act for making investment of Amount of Rs. 14,09,670/- in purchase of agriculture land being in the name of minor Daughter, which is grossly, arbitrarily, perverse, wrong & illegal in the Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. I.T.A No. 336/Agra/2014 2 2. Because in any view, the proceeding u/s 147/148

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

147 read with Section 148 of the Act. Hence, this decision also cannot be equated with the approval as amended under Section 153D of the Act. As regards the other decisions cited by the learned CIT-DR of Kunhayammed (supra) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (supra), these relate to the concept of merger of High Court order in question with Supreme

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

147 read with Section 148 of the Act. Hence, this decision also cannot be equated with the approval as amended under Section 153D of the Act. As regards the other decisions cited by the learned CIT-DR of Kunhayammed (supra) and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (supra), these relate to the concept of merger of High Court order in question with Supreme

DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed under section 36. 6. It is seen that in the various grounds taken by the assessee he is trying to argue case by filing evidences as is done during scrutiny assessments and not u/s143(1) under centralized computerized processing. In view of the procedures that exist for computerized processing, assessee is advised to first file a rectification application online

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)

disallowed. In view of all these facts, I have reason to believe that amount of Rs.1,03,89,106/- has escaped assessment in this case for AY 2014-15. Therefore, action u/s 147 is being taken after obtaining approval from the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, as per provisions contained under section

SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

disallowable expenditure uls 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD of the 1.T. Act Rs. 71,44,045/ is grossily arbitrary, highly unjust, unwarranted capricious, wrong. illegal, bad in facts & law. 2. Because in any view, the Assessment Order dt. 21.12.2019 passed u/s 147 read with section

M/S A K TRANSPORT AGENCY,FARRUKHABAD vs. CIT APPEAL, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

disallowance of Rs.1,00,000/-. 8. As per Section 154 of the IT Act, provides for rectification of mistakes. In this regard, in ‘Cardinal Drugs Pvt. Ltd.’ (supra), it has been held that the power I.T.A No. 328/Agra/2016 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) conferred by the provisions of section 154 is a power to correct mistakes and not a power

PARMANAND,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act whereas in the Assessment order the addition has been made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act. This is apparently bad in law and not permissible under the Act. Reasons recorded have to be read as it is. No substitution/deletion/addition in the reasons recorded is permissible under the law. On this ground also

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

disallowance of the exemption claimed under section 11 and 13 of the Act as the activities of the assessee was in the nature of trade, commerce or business in nature. In response to that the assessee filed the reply of 7th August 2013 and in the reply it was mentioned as under. “ Before replying to specific queries, the assessee

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

disallowances made on estimate basis do not warrant any penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In support, he has relied upon following decisions of various High Courts and ITAT : (i). M/s. Toshiba Water Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 2025(9) TMI 511(ITAT Delhi – order dated 29.08.2025) (ii). M/s. Vijay Power Generators

GIREESH CHANDRA,ETAH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), ETAH, ETAH

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 which was completed without complying with the requirement of law or taking proper approval. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Assessing Officer even when the assessing officer acted

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

disallowances, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could very well be imposed. And case law (1992) 60 Taxman 51 (Allahabad) CIT v/s Radhey Shyam Shyam Sunder Jaiswal is also referred to state that even estimated additions also attract impugned penalty proceedings. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to both parties’ rival stands. The assessee’s case throughout has been

ANIL KUMAR,ETAH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), ETAH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

147 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on a preset mind, without any independent application of mind or without extraction of the taxable income. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Assessing Officer even when

M/S BLUE LOTUS DEVELOPERS ,GWALIOR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), GWALIOR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Blue Lotus Developers Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac, 101, The Empire, 33, City Delhi Center, Gwalior M.P.-474011 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaifb4692D Appellant .. Respondent

147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. P a g e | 2 M/s Blue Lotus Developers 3. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee does not wish to press for its former substantive grievance challenging disallowance of interest income amounting to Rs.1