RAJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(3), MATHURA

In the result appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. Pan: Akvpr1777Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

144 of the Act, However, perusal of the appellate order passed by the learned CIT(A) reveals that assessee challenged the action of re-opening, particularly in the light of Amrik Singh Vs ITO (2016) 70 taxmann.com 26 before the learned CIT(A) by taking specific grounds. Learned CIT(A) extensively and elaborately discussed the issue and held re-opening

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

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 25.03.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the preliminary issue to be decided is whether the assumption of jurisdiction for reopening the assessment by Jurisdictional

HARI SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes treated as

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

144 of the IT Act 1961 was in order ignoring the factual position that no benefit of inflation cost index as well as section 54 F was allowed by the A.O. 3. Because the orders of the Ld CIT (A) as well as AO. being erroneous in law deserve to be cancelled and direction be issued to A.O. to allow

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]

144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 23/08/ 2019, in compliance to the said notice, the assessee furnished his reply along with the copy of bank statements through system placed on file. b) On perusal of reply of it was noted that, the assessee was enjoying income from house property, business income in the shape of teaching tuitions

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)

house / plot, holding entire allotment money as income is arbitrary and whimsical. The addition may kindly be directed to be deleted. 7. Because the appellant craves leave to alter/ modify grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset both the parties have mentioned, that the appeal for the assessment year

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)

house / plot, holding entire allotment money as income is arbitrary and whimsical. The addition may kindly be directed to be deleted. 7. Because the appellant craves leave to alter/ modify grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset both the parties have mentioned, that the appeal for the assessment year

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)

house / plot, holding entire allotment money as income is arbitrary and whimsical. The addition may kindly be directed to be deleted. 7. Because the appellant craves leave to alter/ modify grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. At the outset both the parties have mentioned, that the appeal for the assessment year

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

MOHD ARIF,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), ETWAH, ETAWAH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Mohd. Arif, Income Tax Officer, 68, Huiganj Pachraha, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Income Tax Office, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-206001 Vs Civil Lines, Etawah, Uttar Pradesh-207001 Pan-Anapa8542J Appellant Respondent

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 16.03.2022. The assessee has filed an adjournment petition, which was rejected and the appeal is being decided after hearing both the parties and on the basis of materials available on record. 2. There is a delay of 231 days in filing of this appeal before

LATA SHARMA,AGRA vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

House No.1121, Ward-2(1)(2), Bassachalu, Tarrakpu Poiya, Vs Agra Agra, Uttar Pradesh-283126 PAN-IBZPS9821M Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Gagan Bahgel, Adv. Respondent by Shri Shailender Srivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated

SHYAM GUPTA,MATHURA vs. CIT , AGRA

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

property with the support of the affidavit of the deceased wife. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 vide order dated 27.03.2015 assessing capital gains at Rs.3 lac in the I.T.A No. 148/Agra/2018 2 hands of deceased Shri Kalicharan on the sale of house at Rs.4,30,000/- as against

SAROJ,MAINPURI vs. I.T.O WARD 2(5), MAINPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

144 to the assessee,but the assessee did not comply. Assessee thereafter submitted reply before the Assessing Officer and submitted that she is a house wife and also submitted copy of power of attorney dated 20.03.2012 and copy of sale deed of two immovable properties sold by Sh. Sugriv Singh on 07.11.2012 for Rs.10,50,000/- and Rs.4

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

RAKESH PORWAL,ACHHALDA vs. ITO, AURAIYA

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

Bench: Shri Lalit Kumar & Dr. M.L. Meena

144 of the act, wide over dated 26.12.2016, determining assessee income at ₹ 1 231630 as against the alternative income of ₹ 2 56630. The AO wide passing this exporting assessment order, has treated the assessee is investment in purchase of two plots and in construction of the guesthouse as unexplained income from other sources. Thus, in addition