JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

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)

13 (In ITA Nos. 149 to 151/Agra/2017) 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, holding that the appellant is engaged in commercial activities by virtue of section 2(15) of the I. T. Act, as amended from 01.04.2009. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is carrying on non commercial activities

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

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

The appeals of the department are dismissed

property to be mortgaged to the bank and would also give a corporate guarantee to the bank for the loan facility availed by TAPL and in turn TAPL would give short term business assistance in terms of funds to the assessee. It was also explained that the assessee company was neither a registered nor a beneficial share holder

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)

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs. 42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on 15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to the tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is substantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

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)

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs. 42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on 15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to the tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is substantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

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)

House No.15 and out of which, cash of Rs. 42 lacs was seized. During the course of search at the residential premises on 15.10.2014, the assessee had stated that cash, as found, from the residence to the tune of Rs. 45.81 lacs was of different companies, in which, there is substantial cash in hand in the books of accounts

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

property in January, 2014. A contractor was appointed with whom an agreement was entered into for construction of ground floor on turnkey basis at a cost of Rs. 23.40 lacs. The construction activity on the residential plot was commenced in the month of January, 2014 and was under progress on the date of finalization of the assessment proceedings. The assessee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS. PVT. LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT, CC- , AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 to 2019-20 arises out of separate orders of learned first appellate authority in the matter of quantum assessments as well as levy of penalties for these years. First, we take up quantum appeal ITA No.141/Agr/2023 for AY 2014-15 which

AGRA INFRALAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE RANGE CENTRAL, AGRA

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.141/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.142/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.143/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.144/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.145/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.146/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2019-20) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.147/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2016-17) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.148/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2017-18) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.149/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2018-19) & 10. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.150/Agr/2023

D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 to 2019-20 arises out of separate orders of learned first appellate authority in the matter of quantum assessments as well as levy of penalties for these years. First, we take up quantum appeal ITA No.141/Agr/2023 for AY 2014-15 which