ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

d) all moneys received by the Authority from the disposal of lands, buildings and other properties, movable and immovable and (e) all moneys received by the Authority by way of rents and profits or in any other manner or from any other source,and has relied upon the report of special auditor whereby it has been observed that the activities

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property held under trust or from voluntary contributions and to ascertain whether in the case of the assessee the character of income falls under any one of the two categories envisaged in Sections 11(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d), the factual activities being carried out by the assessee is to be examined. The assessee is engaged in the activity

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

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

Housing Pvt. Ltd. 12, 3rd Vs..ACIT-Circle 4(1), FL. Maruti Plaza, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. PAN No.AAECM5868P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Shashank Agarwal, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 11.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2017 ORDER PER, BENCH: All these appeals by the assessees involve a common legal issue and therefore, they are being

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

11 relating to issue of additional evidences under Rule 46A and section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. On merits, he submitted that Ground Nos.5, 6, 8 9 & 10 are on merits. CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 28. With regard to ground no.1 raised by the revenue, Ld. DR submitted that ld. CIT (A) did not appreciate the facts that

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

11 relating to issue of additional evidences under Rule 46A and section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. On merits, he submitted that Ground Nos.5, 6, 8 9 & 10 are on merits. CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 28. With regard to ground no.1 raised by the revenue, Ld. DR submitted that ld. CIT (A) did not appreciate the facts that

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

11 relating to issue of additional evidences under Rule 46A and section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. On merits, he submitted that Ground Nos.5, 6, 8 9 & 10 are on merits. CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 28. With regard to ground no.1 raised by the revenue, Ld. DR submitted that ld. CIT (A) did not appreciate the facts that

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S PREM MOTORS PVT LTD., GWALIOR

The appeals of the department are dismissed

11 registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender companies, the loan/advance received by the assessee company from these group companies could be taxed in its hand as “deemed dividend” within the provisions of section 2(22)(e). 3.6.1 The provisions of section 2(22)(e) came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to theprescription of law/ procedure in relation there toand hence ought to have appreciated that in theabsence of valid foundation for issuance of noticeundersection 148 of the Act, the consequential re-assessment should be considered as nullity in law. 4. According to the Ld.AR, the impugned notice issued u/s.148

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to theprescription of law/ procedure in relation there toand hence ought to have appreciated that in theabsence of valid foundation for issuance of noticeundersection 148 of the Act, the consequential re-assessment should be considered as nullity in law. 4. According to the Ld.AR, the impugned notice issued u/s.148

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to theprescription of law/ procedure in relation there toand hence ought to have appreciated that in theabsence of valid foundation for issuance of noticeundersection 148 of the Act, the consequential re-assessment should be considered as nullity in law. 4. According to the Ld.AR, the impugned notice issued u/s.148

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to theprescription of law/ procedure in relation there toand hence ought to have appreciated that in theabsence of valid foundation for issuance of noticeundersection 148 of the Act, the consequential re- assessment should be considered as nullity in law. 4. According to the Ld.AR, the impugned notice issued u/s.148

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

d) of the Act by the JAO was in complete defiance to theprescription of law/ procedure in relation there toand hence ought to have appreciated that in theabsence of valid foundation for issuance of noticeundersection 148 of the Act, the consequential re- assessment should be considered as nullity in law. 4. According to the Ld.AR, the impugned notice issued u/s.148

ITO 1(2), GWALIOR vs. SMT REENA AGRAWAL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

d. Smt. Rajneet Sandhu v. Dy. CIT [2010] 133TTJ (Chd.) (UO) 64 e. Smt. V.A. Tharabai V. DCIT (2012) 50 SOT 537 f. CIT V. Sri, SambandamUdaykumar Income Tax Appeal No. 175 of 2012 (Karnataka High high Court) g. Smt. Usha Vaid v. ITO [2012] 53 SOT 385 (Amritsar) h. Narasimha Raju Rudra Raju v. Assistant Commissioner of Income

MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

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

d) the income from a property, deposit, security, unit or share held in the name of a deductee is owned jointly by the deductee and other persons and the income is assessable in their hands in the same proportion as their ownership of the asset: Provided that the deductee files a declaration with the deductor and the deductor reports

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

11. Statement of facts is reproduced here as under. "The assessee has filed her ITR on 17.12.2017 showing an income of Rs. 16,48,236 which includes income under the head salaries of Rs.8,70,000, income under the head house property of Rs. 1,59,600 and interest income of Rs.6,18,636. The assessee case was selected

SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.340/AGR/2024 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 16.06.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

House or the quantum of investment in the same is available on record, and hence excess deduction has been allowed. Not only the deduction was wrongly allowed but also no inquiry was done during the Assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Perusal of the case record further shows that the Assessee has filed the copy

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

House or the quantum of investment in the same is available on record, and hence excess deduction has been allowed. Not only the deduction was wrongly allowed but also no inquiry was done during the Assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Perusal of the case record further shows that the Assessee has filed the copy