DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 143(1) being bad in law is liable to be quashed. 4. Because in any view of the matter, no opportunity was provided to the assessee, by the CPC, before making such disallowance and therefore the disallowance being made is against the principle of natural justice and bad in law and hence liable to be deleted. 5. Because

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

132(1) of the Act dated 19.07.2018 carried out in the R S Bullion and jewellers group of cases including the premises of assessee. The quantum appeal filed against the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 was dismissed by the ld CIT(A), vide order dated 28.06.2022 passed in appeal No CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10199/2013-14. Penalty proceedings were also initiated

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the I.T. Act, 1961 are initiated for filing inaccurate particulars of income.” 10. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 10.02.2014 has allowed the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 124/Agr/2014 and have deleted the addition in respect of ground no.1, the paragraphs

POONAM GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2006-07

132(1) of the Act on 28.03.2018, assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A wherein addition of Rs.70,14,083/- and Rs.88,000/- was made. In first appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) both the additions were deleted. The matter was carried before the ITAT who vide order dated 17.07.2013 confirmed the addition of Rs.70,14,083/- and upheld

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

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

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

SAURABH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

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

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD, MATHURA

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

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

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

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD,MATHURA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

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

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

penalty was held as procedurally defective. The provisions laid down u/s. 153D of the Act under consideration in the present case before us, are different as here the prior approval of Joint Commissioner is not required merely for direction for payment of the due amount of tax but overall approval of the assessment framed by the I.T.O. Thus, the cited

RAJESH LADHANI,FAIZABAD vs. DCIT CC , AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaita No. 106,107 & 108/Agra/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. Dy. C.I.T. –Central Circle, Rajesh Ladhani, 259, Savera Bhawan, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra. Faizabad. Pan: Abapl5646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty consequences would flow from such an order against the assessee. Further, it was submitted that there is no requirement under the law for granting the hearing to the assessee by the Additional CIT/Joint CIT prior to giving Approval under section 153D of the Act for assessment or reassessment under section 153A

SH. NAVEEN SHIVAHRE,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-3,, GWALIOR

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.381/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.382/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.383/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.384/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.318/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.319/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.380/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.381/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Naveen Shivhare बनाम/ Acit, Circle-3, M-40, Gandhi Nagar, Gwalior. Gwalior. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aempg-8216-Z (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr

132 or requisition made under section 132A. Respectfully following the same, we delete the impugned addition as made by Ld. AO and also the enhancement as made by Ld. CIT(A). The appeal succeeds on this foremost legal ground alone. 5. It is admitted position that the nature of additions in AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 are quite similar

NAVEEN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.381/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.382/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.383/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.384/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.318/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.319/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.380/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.381/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Naveen Shivhare बनाम/ Acit, Circle-3, M-40, Gandhi Nagar, Gwalior. Gwalior. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aempg-8216-Z (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr

132 or requisition made under section 132A. Respectfully following the same, we delete the impugned addition as made by Ld. AO and also the enhancement as made by Ld. CIT(A). The appeal succeeds on this foremost legal ground alone. 5. It is admitted position that the nature of additions in AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 are quite similar

SH. NAVEEN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T.CIRCLE-3,, GWALIOR

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.381/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.382/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.383/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.384/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.318/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.319/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.380/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.381/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Naveen Shivhare बनाम/ Acit, Circle-3, M-40, Gandhi Nagar, Gwalior. Gwalior. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aempg-8216-Z (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr

132 or requisition made under section 132A. Respectfully following the same, we delete the impugned addition as made by Ld. AO and also the enhancement as made by Ld. CIT(A). The appeal succeeds on this foremost legal ground alone. 5. It is admitted position that the nature of additions in AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 are quite similar

SH. NAVEEN SHIVHARE,GWALIOR vs. ITO.-WARD-3(2), GWALIOR

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.381/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.382/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.383/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.384/Agr/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.318/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.319/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.380/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.381/Agr/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Shri Naveen Shivhare बनाम/ Acit, Circle-3, M-40, Gandhi Nagar, Gwalior. Gwalior. Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aempg-8216-Z (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, Adv. – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr

132 or requisition made under section 132A. Respectfully following the same, we delete the impugned addition as made by Ld. AO and also the enhancement as made by Ld. CIT(A). The appeal succeeds on this foremost legal ground alone. 5. It is admitted position that the nature of additions in AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 are quite similar