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

147 are abated due to initiation of Section 153C, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions based on the original reasons recorded under Section 147/148 unless they are supported by incriminating material found during the search. 4. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify

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

147 are abated due to initiation of Section 153C, the Assessing Officer cannot make additions based on the original reasons recorded under Section 147/148 unless they are supported by incriminating material found during the search. 4. That the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) are invalid and unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer failed to specify

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

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

147\nread with 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

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

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

147\nread with 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

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

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

147\nread with 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

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

147 r.w.s. 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

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

147 r.w.s. 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

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

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

147\nread with 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

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

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)

147 read with 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

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)

147 read with 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

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)

147 read with 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

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

ARUN KUMAR SHARMA,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

147 r.s.w. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 24.10.2017 and u/s 271(1)(c) dated\n26.04.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Firozabad\n(hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO'). Since these are quantum and penalty\nappeals for the same assessment year, they are taken up together

D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S PNC INFRATECH LTD., AGRA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2011-12

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned counsel first of all takes us to para 7.2 of the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 in which the addition made by the Assessing Officer was only of proportionate administrative expenditure than the issue forming subject matter of section 147 reopening for back to back contracts as noted by the CIT(Appeals

ARUM KUMAR SHARMA,FIROZABAD vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

147 r.s.w. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 24.10.2017 and u/s 271(1)(c) dated 26.04.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Firozabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). Since these are quantum and penalty appeals for the same assessment year, they are taken up together and disposed

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