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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2014-15, wherein ld CIT(A) has sustained the penalty to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/- as against the penalty of Rs. 39,01,450/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide penalty order dated 29.09.2023 2. Briefly stating

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

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)

250(6). The enhancement, therefore, deserves to be struck down on this ground alone. 11. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the consequential levy of interest under sections 234A/234B/234C is wrong and without prejudice; the initiation of penalty proceedings, if any, is unwarranted. 12. That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary

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

250 of the Act on 30.07.2024. The said order was uploaded on Income Tax Portal and was not served by any of the modes specified in section 282 of the Act. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the E-mail Id registered on the income tax portal was of the previous accountant of the Appellant who had already

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

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.4,45,000/-. It was submitted that the power of attorney was given by her husband to Shri Sugriv Singh to sell the immovable property

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 affirming the demand assessed by the assessing officer amounting to Rs.12,31,630/- 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the income determined by the assessing officer on the basis of “Best Judgment Assessment” u/s 144 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred