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

b) No.9772/2013 (SC). “Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT”, (c) in ITA No.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal (d) No. 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA (e) No.07/2010(Del) (H.C.). “ShyamBiri Works”, 259 ITR 625 (All. H.C.). (f) “Sangam Enterprises vs. CIT”, 288 ITR 396 (All). (g) “Harish Hosiery Mart”, ITAT, Ahmedabad

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

b) No.9772/2013 (SC). “Gujarat State Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT”, (c) in ITA No.2078/Ahd/2006 & 2526/Ahd/206. “M/s K.P. Madhusudan vs. CIT”, Civil Appeal (d) No. 6465/2000 (SC). “CIT vs. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.”, ITA (e) No.07/2010(Del) (H.C.). “Shyam Biri Works”, 259 ITR 625 (All. H.C.). (f) “Sangam Enterprises vs. CIT”, 288 ITR 396 (All). (g) “Harish Hosiery Mart”, ITAT, Ahmedabad

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

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

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

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

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

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**

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**

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