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

Section 50C, the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was deemed to be the full value of the consideration received as a result of the transfer and thus, the difference of Rs. 62,48,400/- (Rs. 1,16,65,000/- less Rs. 54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner

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

Section 50C, the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority was deemed to be the full value of the consideration received as a result of the transfer and thus, the difference of Rs. 62,48,400/- (Rs. 1,16,65,000/- less Rs. 54,16,600/-) was to be brought to tax. Half share of the Assessee as co-owner

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties

BIPIN BAU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties

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

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

House, Agra PAN No. – AAALA0081F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Sunil Bajpai, CIT DR & Sh. Mazhar Akram, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 08.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2021 ORDER Per LALIET KUMAR J.M. ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 2 S. NO 1 GROUNDS OF APPEALS 2-20 2 BACK GROUND FACTS

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT 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)

142(2A). The observations on the activities are irrelevant and unreliable. The authorities below have relied upon his observations which is not permitted in law. The applicability of section 2(15) can only be verified independently, if at all required, by the Income Tax Authorities. The Income Tax Authorities have not applied there independent mind on this issue. Without prejudice

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)

142(2A). The observations on the activities are irrelevant and unreliable. The authorities below have relied upon his observations which is not permitted in law. The applicability of section 2(15) can only be verified independently, if at all required, by the Income Tax Authorities. The Income Tax Authorities have not applied there independent mind on this issue. Without prejudice

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)

142(2A). The observations on the activities are irrelevant and unreliable. The authorities below have relied upon his observations which is not permitted in law. The applicability of section 2(15) can only be verified independently, if at all required, by the Income Tax Authorities. The Income Tax Authorities have not applied there independent mind on this issue. Without prejudice

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

house was quashed. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the ld. AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat ld. AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income

SMT. NISHA KESHWANI,AGRA vs. DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 69C for unaccounted investment of the assessee of construction of the house property which was not disclosed by her in the return of income. 8. That the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceeding initiated u/s 142(1

BHARTI BANSAL,AGRA vs. DCIT-1, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3). Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Shakti Construction ,and derives business income from contract work, income from house 2 | P a g e property

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. The assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings, and furnished most of the 2 | P a g e Asst Year: 2012-13 Yugal Kishor Agarwal information and replies during the course of reassessment proceedings. The assessee was having income from salary, income from house property, Remuneration and interest from Partnership

SHRI RAJ KUMAR MITTAL,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

142 or 142A of the Act are also applicable. Therefore, it is well within the competence of the A.O. to invoke section 142A of the Act and obtain the valuation of renovation/reconstruction of the house from District Valuation Officer. In fact, it would be unfair, if the A.O does not do so. The house property in itself is a documentary

POONAM SAXENA,ALIGARH vs. ITO, WARD 4(1)(5), ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 21/01/2019 and 02/07/2019 requiring the assessee to furnish necessary information as mention therein, but the assessee did not comply any of the notice. Thereafter, a show cause notice u/s 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 23/08/ 2019, in compliance to the said notice, the assessee furnished

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has declared income from salary of Rs.1,74,000/- and income from business of Rs.1,38,500/- against gross receipts of Rs.4,50,000/-. Besides above, the assessee has declared nil income from capital gains

DEVEN CHAUDHRY,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) were issued and served on the assessee through e- portal. Assessee is the director of a company M/s. Aqua Plumbing Pvt. Ltd. Mathura and getting salary from the same company. He has also partner in combined Industries and General Plumbings, Mathura. The selection of the assessee's case