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)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

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)

35 taxmann.com 250/218 Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 and observed that the notice issued by the AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated under i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Karnataka High Court

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

section 263 of the Act. He remitted the order back to the AO\nto pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries.\n9.\nOn careful consideration of material facts on record, we observed that Ld\nPCIT had completely ignored the other facts on record that in the case of\nIrfan, in subsequent appeal before CIT(A), the addition was deleted. Further

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)

35,000/- made by the AO in the instant case is completely out of the scene in the final assessed income shows volumes. 17.2 Even the factual situation is much worse than the facts decided by the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Duggal (supra). In that case, at least the assessment folders were sent whereas in the instant case

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)

35,000/- made by the AO in the instant case is completely out of the scene in the final assessed income shows volumes. 17.2 Even the factual situation is much worse than the facts decided by the Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Duggal (supra). In that case, at least the assessment folders were sent whereas in the instant case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

35 and when it was enquired\nin e-filing portal, the fact of passing of order was come to the notice\nof the assessee. Thereafter immediately assessee rushed up and filed\nthe appeal. Under these circumstances, it is requested that the delay\nbe condoned as the assessee has sufficient cause for such delay.\n3. After perusing the facts, we find

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

section 151 of the Act. The statutory notice dated 31.03.2021 issued u/s. 148 and subsequent notice issued u/s. 142(1) with questionnaire dated 15.11.2021 stood un-responded by the assessee. The assessee, however, submitted his reply dated 20.02.2022 in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 24.12.2021, which as per Assessing Officer, was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, show cause notice

SAINT MARKS SCHOOL SIKSHA SAMITI,AGRA vs. JAO (EXEMPTIONS), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Saint Marks School Siksha Samiti, Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing 41, Saint Peters Colony, Ghatia, Officer-Exemption Hariparvat, Agra Ward, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaeas7764A

35,564/- against which the application of income for charitable purposes was Rs. 2,27,32,532 ( Rs. 2,08,81,587/- towards running expenses and Rs. 18,50,945/- as addition to fixed assets). Thus, there was a surplus of Rs. 19,03,032/- which was stated to be below the maximum permissible limit of 15 percent for accumulation

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

35,180/- as originally determined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 09.04.2021. Notice of demand and challan is issued accordingly.” H. From the above sequence of events and documentary evidences, it is very much clear that the AO was well aware about the reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 and he took all the step

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

35,180/- as originally determined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 09.04.2021. Notice of demand and challan is issued accordingly.” H. From the above sequence of events and documentary evidences, it is very much clear that the AO was well aware about the reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 and he took all the step

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

35,180/- as originally determined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 09.04.2021. Notice of demand and challan is issued accordingly.” H. From the above sequence of events and documentary evidences, it is very much clear that the AO was well aware about the reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 and he took all the step

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

section 263 of the Act. He remitted the order back to the AO\nto pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries.\n9. On careful consideration of material facts on record, we observed that Ld\nPCIT had completely ignored the other facts on record that in the case of\nIrfan, in subsequent appeal before CIT(A), the addition was deleted. Further

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

1,22,50,000/- made from the same bank Account on 28.10.2016. 3. BECAUSE, the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in applying and confirming the levy of tax at the special rate under section 115BBE of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act cannot be invoked in view of the judgment

GUNJAN GUPTA,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT-1, AGRA

In the result, this appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usgunjan Gupta Vs. Pr. Cit A-45, Sector – 26 Agra - 1 Noda – 201 301, Uttar Pradesh Pan No. Abupg 5419 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav- Cit(D.R.) Date Of Hearing: 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.12.2023

section 143(3) with capital amounting to Rs.22441756.00/-.” 3. In this case, learned Pr. CIT observed that on perusal of assessment records, it was noted that the case was selected under limited scrutiny for the reason – “substantial increase in capital in a year”. Capital of Rs.2,35,09,650/- was introduced during the year. It was also observed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1 to 5 of judgement\nset\nii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chunnilal as reported\nin 211 ITR 11. Copy placed at page 6 of judgement set regarding source of source.\niii)\nJudgment in the case of Mis. Loil Overseas Food Ltd. vs. ITO as reported in (2017)\n88 taxmann.com 782 (Chandigarh