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, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash

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, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash

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, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash

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, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining two houses No. 4, Kailash

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

house from this statutory authorities. In view of the above the ground No. 1 of the revenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Apropos second ground the Ld. DR had drawn our attention to paragraph 5.2.3 of the CIT order wherein this issue was dealt. It was contended by the Ld. DR that the order

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) of the Act in consequence to action taken u/s 153C of the Act in earlier year is wrong

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

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

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

19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 31.07.2025 and 11.07.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated ITA No. 432/AGR/2025 24.03.2023 and 01.03.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer

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

19, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 31.07.2025 and 11.07.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated ITA No. 432/AGR/2025 24.03.2023 and 01.03.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer

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

section 153A of the Act, by making identical additions on the basis of the report of the Departmental Veluer (“the DVO” in short), in respect of the same property from A.Y 2008-2009 to A.Y 2012-2013. ITA 47 to 52/Agra/2017 3 3.1 The assessee, alongwith his other family members, had purchased a residential house bearing House No.55 at Ganesh

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)

19 second proviso to section 133(6). Thus, prior approval was required to be obtained from the competent authority before exercising power under section 133(6); There is nothing on record to suggest that any such prior approval was obtained herein. The letter, per se, also does not make mention of any such approval. Hence, the power exercised

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

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

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. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

section, cannot be used for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings, in my opinion, is not correct.” We do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, grounds Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 are dismissed. 7. Grounds Nos. 2.1 to 2.3 are on merits. The assessee, Smt. Bina Wadhva filed the return of income declaring

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

House Property, Business, Capital Gains and Other sources consisting of Interest and Dividend on investments. During the A.Y. 2018-19 the appellant made investments in 8% Taxable Government of India Bonds (herein after referred to as 8% RBI Bond) through Mis Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. (herein after referred to as SHCIL) as under: 8% RBI Bond Cumulative