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

YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

6. That the penalty order is vitiated by non-application of mind and mechanical satisfaction, as the AO merely reproduced the assessment findings without independent reasoning for levy of penalty. 7. That the penalty is not sustainable as the AO relied on deeming fiction under Section 50C to compute LTCG, and penalty cannot be levied on additions made purely

YASH KUMAR GOYAL,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

6. That the penalty order is vitiated by non-application of mind and mechanical satisfaction, as the AO merely reproduced the assessment findings without independent reasoning for levy of penalty. 7. That the penalty is not sustainable as the AO relied on deeming fiction under Section 50C to compute LTCG, and penalty cannot be levied on additions made purely

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

11,380/-. Addition of Rs.32,30,790/- was made by the Assessing Officer towards peak investment made by the assessee in the share transactions business , as the assessee could not explain the sources of such investments made by him in the share trading business. Assessee has claimed that the assessee is dealing in share market for last 6-7 years

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

11,380/-. Addition of Rs.32,30,790/- was made by the Assessing Officer towards peak investment made by the assessee in the share transactions business , as the assessee could not explain the sources of such investments made by him in the share trading business. Assessee has claimed that the assessee is dealing in share market for last 6-7 years

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

11,380/-. Addition of Rs.32,30,790/- was made by the Assessing Officer towards peak investment made by the assessee in the share transactions business , as the assessee could not explain the sources of such investments made by him in the share trading business. Assessee has claimed that the assessee is dealing in share market for last 6-7 years

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

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D), 2024 SCC online SC 489, has observed that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity, that the length of delay is a relevant matter, which

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

11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D), 2024 SCC online SC 489, has observed that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity, that the length of delay is a relevant matter, which

JAGGO,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Jaggo Vs. Income Tax Officer S/O Sh. Indar H. No. 6, Azampur Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura Mathura, Mathura Pan : Ayopj8958J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 17.11.2025 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Aggrieved With The Above Order, Assessee Is In This Appeal, Raising Following Grounds : “1. Because In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Information/Explanation Along With The Documents During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act. The Above Notice Was Issued Through Registered E-Mail Id & Fixed For Compliance On 26.02.2021, After Laps Of Considerable Time, The Assessing Officer Issued The Another Notice U/S 274 To The Assessee R.W.S 271(1)B) Of The Act Why Penalty U/S 271 Of The Act Should Not Be Initiated & Levied. In Compliance, The Assessee Not Submitted Any Reply. Accordingly, Assessing Officer Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 10,000/-.

section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee calling for information/explanation along with the documents during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. The above notice was issued through registered e-mail id and fixed for compliance

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and by charging the interest u/s 234B of the Act. Ground No. 6: That the appellant reserves the right to add, modify, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds.” ADDITIONAL GROUND: "7. That the assessment order concluded 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act is bad in the eyes

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

6. The first appeal was accordingly dismissed by the first appellate authority. 7. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to others, that Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the additional evidences filed during the first appellate proceedings, wrongly denying the benefit of section 54B of the Act while calculating

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

6. The first appeal was accordingly dismissed by the first appellate authority. 7. This second appeal has been filed on the ground, in addition to others, that Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the additional evidences filed during the first appellate proceedings, wrongly denying the benefit of section 54B of the Act while calculating

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO,WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

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

u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notice 2 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 were issued, which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment proceedings and made and addition of Rs.60,85,071/- to the returned income of assessee, assessing total income at Rs.64,59,640/-. 4. Aggrieved

MR.SHAILENDRA KUMAR ,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

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

u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notice 2 | P a g e ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 were issued, which remained un-responded on behalf of the assessee. Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment proceedings and made and addition of Rs.60,85,071/- to the returned income of assessee, assessing total income at Rs.64,59,640/-. 4. Aggrieved

NEERAJ KUMAR,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshneeraj Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18/24, Ghadi Hussaini Ward-2(1)(3), Prakash Nagar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajwpn8393C Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Garg, Adv Shri Pradumn Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

penalty under section 271(1)(b). Neeraj Kumar 2. Because the learned CIT(A) orders dated 25/08/2025 and 24/09/2025 under section 154 failed to rectify clear mistakes, ignored jurisdictional defects, and were passed without proper application of mind. 3. Because the notice issued under section 148 was never validly served on the appellant, as the address used by the Department

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

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

271(1)(b) were not answered by the appellant. Thereafter, a show- cause notice under section 144 was issued by the AO. on 16.11.2016 and on its non-service through the speed post, ITI was deputed to serve it personally on the appellant. Vide his report dated 06.12.2016, the ITI has reported that Shri Tej Singh had expired

JAY SINGH,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 200, 201 & 198/Agr/2025 are allowed for

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 144 r/w 144B of the Act and 2 | P a g e ITA Nos.200, 201 & 198/Agr/2025 added Rs.63,42,154/- as unexplained cash deposits and credit entries in assessee’s bank account u/s. 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who, vide, ex parte order dated 24.02.2025, dismissed assessee’s first