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)

14 Section 55, 56 and 57 deals with the power of the State Government to make rules, regulation and bye laws. 15 And finally, the dissolution clause, where the State Government is satisfied that the purpose for which the authority was established under the UPUPD Act has been substantially achieved, than the State Government, may by notification in the Gazette

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

The appeals of the department are dismissed

house property as per provisions of section 22 read with 23 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.13,75,355/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Income

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

FIROZABAD SHIKOHABAD,FIROZABAD vs. C.I.T.-II, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench, Alongwith The Annexures Mentioned Therein. The Contents Thereof Are As Follows:

property, to curry out building, engineering, mining and oilier operations, to execute works in connection with the supply of water and electricity, to dispose of sewage and to provide and maintain other services and amenities and generally to do anything necessary or expedient for purposes of such development and for purposes incidental thereto:” 6. The CIT(A) has rejected

ALAUDDIN,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2015-16

2(14) of the Act. Finding no details of capital gain tax on sale of immovable property, learned jurisdictional Assessing Officer framed his reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and with the prior approval of the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax u/s. 151 of the Act, issued notice dated

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings. The assesseehas declared income from house property, income from other sources and loss from business or profession, in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has shown loss of Rs.10,06,265/- from business or profession, which

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

2) read with 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

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

2) read with 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

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

2) read with 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

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

2) read with 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

NAVEEN GULU MULANI,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

14 of the Income Tax Act so as to attract the provisions of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The notice issued under Section 148 on the basis of such reason is against the provisions of Section 147 read with Section 2(24)/14 of the Income Tax Act, liable to be annulled. 3. That the AO has erred

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

property; and that the assessee had filed RoI for AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 at total income at Rs.12,61,790/- wherein the assessee didn‟t report any capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued

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

property; and that the assessee had filed RoI for AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 at total income at Rs.12,61,790/- wherein the assessee didn‟t report any capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued

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

property; and that the assessee had filed RoI for AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 at total income at Rs.12,61,790/- wherein the assessee didn’t report any capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued

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

property; and that the assessee had filed RoI for AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 at total income at Rs.12,61,790/- wherein the assessee didn‟t report any capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued

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

property; and that the assessee had filed RoI for AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 at total income at Rs.12,61,790/- wherein the assessee didn’t report any capital gains for AY 2018-19. On the basis of this information, the JAO recorded the reasons for re-opening of assessment after taking prior approval of competent authority and thereafter, issued

SANJAY CHOBEY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Acit, Circle –2(3)( 1), Dr. Sanjay Chobey, (Huf) Opp. Ware House, Shivpuri Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Nandpura, Jhansi 1090, Civil Lines, Pan : Aahhd7844 Q Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent)

House, Shivpuri Aayakar Bhawan, Road, Nandpura, Jhansi 1090, Civil Lines, PAN : AAHHD7844 Q Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri P.K. Sahgal, Advocate And Shri Utsav Sahgal, C.A. Respondent by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.07.2018 ORDER Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against 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