VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of\nRs. 2,50,000/-. These

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

144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 5. This second appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s request for condonation

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

144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same upon rejection of assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay. 5. This second appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting assessee’s appeal upon rejection of assessee’s request for condonation

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. These

WASIM KHAN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHIVPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.42,09,426/- in respect of cash deposit in bank account amounting to Rs.1,21,92,400/- and credits to the tune of Rs.1,91,908/- in the said bank account. The penalty order was passed in absence of any reply received by the assessee. Earlier, the assessee was also completed

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

144B of the Act, upon rejection of ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 27.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground that quantum addition made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order, stood confirmed by ld. CIT(Appeals

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

144B of the Act, upon rejection of ITA No. 228 & 229/Agr/2025 assessee’s prayer for condonation of delay and also dismissed assessee’s first appeal, affirming the penalty order dated 27.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, on the ground that quantum addition made by Assessing Officer in the assessment order, stood confirmed by ld. CIT(Appeals

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

penalty order dated 22.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts in all the three appeals are almost either similar or consequential. Hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these appeals are being decided by the common order. The facts of ITA No. 200/Agr/2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 are only being narrated

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

penalty order dated 22.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts in all the three appeals are almost either similar or consequential. Hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these appeals are being decided by the common order. The facts of ITA No. 200/Agr/2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 are only being narrated

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

penalty order dated 22.09.2022 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts in all the three appeals are almost either similar or consequential. Hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these appeals are being decided by the common order. The facts of ITA No. 200/Agr/2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 are only being narrated