MS/ BHOLE BABA MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES,AGRA vs. THE A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-4(1), AGRA

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

section 18. 271(l)(c) imposed on disallowance made under section 80IA, which was deleted by the ITAT on the ground

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 18. 271(l)(c) imposed on disallowance made under section 80IA, which was deleted by the ITAT on the ground

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 in the assessment order. 6. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the major addition of Rs.97,31,000/- made under section 56(2)(vii) of the 'Act' being on account of deeming fiction cannot be a valid foundation for levy of penalty under section 271

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)

disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Though this decision was rendered in the context of penalty under section 271

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)

disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Though this decision was rendered in the context of penalty under section 271

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)

disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Though this decision was rendered in the context of penalty under section 271

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

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 271 (1)(c). The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant having furnished all the material facts, legally required, the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is wholly erroneous and illegal in the eyes of law. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred both in law and on facts in relying upon the various

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

section 271(1)(c) 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

SH. MANOJ AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O.-2(2), GWALIOR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is required to be failed and accordingly we dismiss both the appeals

271(1)(b) were also issued to the assessee. 4. Thereafter, a Notice under section 142(1) along with a detailed Questionnaire was issued to the assessee fixing compliance on 28.11.2011. In response to Assessee along with his Chartered Accountant appeared before the AO on 12.12.2011, filed written reply along with Audit Report offering a sum of Rs14

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

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

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently

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

271(1)(c) is attracted on disallowance of expenditure u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. With regard to disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards sundry creditors/debtors, we observe that the Assessing Officer has not quoted the relevant section

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

disallowed the assessee’s claim u/s 10A on the basis that the 21. assessee did not fulfill the conditions contained in section 10A. It was observed that the business premises of the assessee was not situated either in a Software Technology Park, or in a Special Category Zone, as required by the provisions of section 10A(1) (A); that

M/S MISS HILL EDUCATION SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. The ld. Counsel states as at the bar that ground no. 3 is not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 3. Regarding ground nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the AO rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act, at the time of filing of return

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO-2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed with the observation as above

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

271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law and the penalty imposed on the basis of such a notice is illegal. 4. That in view of ratio laid down by Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 and I.T.A.T. Agra Bench decision in the case of Kaila Devi

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

271 of the Act and under section 270A(2) (b) and 271F of the Act is unwarranted. Manish Kumar Chaturvedi 9. That the appellate order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is against the law and facts of the appellant's case.” 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issuance of notice of hearing. Hence

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. However, ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s. 80C of the Act. 6. Aggrieved revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,07,000 made

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**

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These