M/S RAMESHTH CONSTRUCTION ,JHANSI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(3)(1) , JHANSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

business of civil contract work in various\ndepartments. The assessee has e-filled his return of income on 14-10-\n2010 declaring total income at Rs 37,17,564/. The assessment was\ncompleted u/s 143(3) of the Act at total income Rs 4751370/- on 31-\n12-2012. The case of assessee was reopened u/s

M/S NARESH KATARE, CONTRACTOR,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

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

business can not be a ground to fix the assessee under the charge of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) in the case of estimate of estimate of income

BLM HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

business etc\". The definition of income under\nsection 2(24) of the Income tax Act,1961, also indicates likewise. MAT on the\nother hand is tax paid on book profits. MAT credit is income tax paid on book\nprofits in earlier years which is allowed to be setoff against taxes paid on\nbusiness income in succeeding years

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently, this

SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

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

income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases

SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

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

income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained credits in his bank accounts and Rs.1,31,58,116/- as bogus purchases

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs.9,47,990/- against the assessee. The penalty so imposed by the AO was consequential to the addition of Rs.32,30,790/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee in the quantum assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the AO u/s

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER SHIVPURI, SHIPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs.9,47,990/- against the assessee. The penalty so imposed by the AO was consequential to the addition of Rs.32,30,790/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee in the quantum assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the AO u/s

CHANDRAPAL SINGH,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER SHIVPURI, SHIVPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar

271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs.9,47,990/- against the assessee. The penalty so imposed by the AO was consequential to the addition of Rs.32,30,790/- made by the AO to the income of the assessee in the quantum assessment order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the AO u/s

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

business operation for generating unaccounted income. They have also operated various dummy bank accounts for such purpose. The list was given at page 2 to 4 of the assessment order. It was mentioned by the AO that eight AOPs were created through which unaccounted income by floating several entities/concerns were generated. The said income was channelized to several real estate

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

business operation for generating unaccounted income. They have also operated various dummy bank accounts for such purpose. The list was given at page 2 to 4 of the assessment order. It was mentioned by the AO that eight AOPs were created through which unaccounted income by floating several entities/concerns were generated. The said income was channelized to several real estate

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

business operation for generating unaccounted income. They have also operated various dummy bank accounts for such purpose. The list was given at page 2 to 4 of the assessment order. It was mentioned by the AO that eight AOPs were created through which unaccounted income by floating several entities/concerns were generated. The said income was channelized to several real estate

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

business operation for generating unaccounted income. They have also operated various dummy bank accounts for such purpose. The list was given at page 2 to 4 of the assessment order. It was mentioned by the AO that eight AOPs were created through which unaccounted income by floating several entities/concerns were generated. The said income was channelized to several real estate

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

business operation for generating unaccounted income. They have also operated various dummy bank accounts for such purpose. The list was given at page 2 to 4 of the assessment order. It was mentioned by the AO that eight AOPs were created through which unaccounted income by floating several entities/concerns were generated. The said income was channelized to several real estate

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since the relief is granted based on Ground No. 4 itself, there is no need to separately adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 7/Ag/2023 – Asst Year

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

business and residential premises of Mr. Shriram Soni, certain documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized. Notice u/s. 153C was issued to the assessee and assessment u/s. 153C r.w.s. 144 have been framed for all the 4 A.Ys. under consideration. Before the Ld CIT(A), the assessment orders were questioned both on legal issue and on merits