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)

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby

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)

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby

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)

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee are hereby

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

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

271(1)(b) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Assessing\nOfficer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').\n2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and\nhence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the\nsake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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

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

271(1)(b) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Assessing\nOfficer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').\nAppeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and\nhence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the\nsake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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

B) Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this regard, he submitted that there are several decisions of coordinate benches, wherein it has been held that no penalty can be levied towards disallowance of expenses u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. (C) Addition of Rs.10,54,363/- of sundry creditors/debtors. In this regard, he submitted that

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)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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

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

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance on fixed assets. The perusal of the impugned assessment order would reveal that the ld. Assessing Officer while considering the net profit rate of the assessee has given a comparative analysis of the turnover and profits of the appellant for the three assessment years as under: A.Y. Sales (Rs.) GP (Rs) G.P. Rate NP(Rs.) N.P. Rate