PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

disallowed. Assessee did not comply with the notice(s), which led to denial of deduction u/s. 11 of the Act by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.5,83,244/- claimed by the assessee vide re-assessment order dated 27.03.2015 framed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144/147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Assessee filed first appeal with

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(A) has allowed assessee’s first appeal for statistical purposes, deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Briefly stating, the appellant assessee is a partnership firm and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and export

PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in appeal arising out of the intimation issued under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bengaluru on 28.02.2025, for the assessment year 2024-25. 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The assessee, an individual resident of India, had originally filed her return of income under section

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 raised by the assessee relate to the addition of Rs.21,12,576/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) pertaining to expenses incurred by the assessee in respect of purchase of material, labourexpenses, repair and maintenance, establishment, selling and administrative expenses

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

250(4) of the Іпсоте Тах Act, in absence\nof which the appeal dismissed by the NFAC is highly unjustified,\nno addition is liable to be sustained, same is liable to be deleted.\n3.\nThat no capital gain arises on the compulsory acquisition\nof land acquired under RFCTLARR Act, the AO without making any\nenquiry and not having any evidence

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment Year [A.Y] 2012-13, wherein learned CIT(A) has partly allowed assessee's appeal. ITA No. 31/Agr/ 2022 Brief facts relating to appeal state that assessee filed his return of 2. income for A.Y. 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs.4,22,200/-. Assessee stated

PRAGATI SINGH,GWALIOR vs. CIT, AAYKAR BHAVAN GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year:2013-14

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Case The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,74,978 under section

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(A)has dismissed assessee first appeal, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide penalty order dated 16.03.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

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

250 of the Act is bad in law and on facts and deserves to be quashed. 2. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit during the demonetization period without due consideration of the fact that

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

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

disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

ZILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the both the appeals ITA No

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

section 250 of the Act, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed/dismissed assessee’sappeals respectively. 2. At the very outset, it is noticed that both the appeals are time-barred by 39-40 days respectively. Delay condonation applications on behalf of Smt. RoshaniRaghuvanshi, staff member of the appellant are on record. The cause for the delay shown, is that

SHRI SRIDHAR PANDEY S/O,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961( hereinafter referred to as”Act”) dated 31.03.2012 pertaining to assessment year (A.Y) 2005-06 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Since it’s a very old appeal, filed in 2012,it was proceeded to be adjudicated exparte on the basis

SH. SRIDHAR PANDEY,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961( hereinafter referred to as”Act”) dated 31.03.2012 pertaining to assessment year (A.Y) 2005-06 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Since it’s a very old appeal, filed in 2012,it was proceeded to be adjudicated exparte on the basis

PAWAN KUMAR CHAUHAN,MAINPURI vs. ITO- WARD 2 (5) , AGRA, AGRA

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the\nAct\").\n2.\nGrounds raised by the assessee are as under :\n\"1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and arbitrarily confirmed all the\nadditions made by the Assessing Officer without considering the\nAudited Balance Sheet, purchase deed of properties, proof of life\ninsurance premium and tution

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]

250 of the Income Tax Act has been passed on 31.01.2024, against which the appeal is to be filed before the Hon ble ITAT within sixty days from the date of order passed by the NFAC. That the assessee could not have filed the appeal within the stipulated time allowed under the Income Tax Act. The assessee is filing

MANISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manish Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1882, Shivaji Nagar, Jhansic Ward-2(3)(2), 284001 Jhansi 284 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Akkpc5294Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') by upholding the assessment order passed by ITO Ward, 2(3) (2), Jhansi [hereinafter referred to as the AO'] u/s 144 of the Act and not giving proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant despite appellant's written requests for seeking adjournment on reasonable