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

271(1)(c) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without jurisdiction. The penalty order as well as the quantum order are passed by the assessing officer who does not hold the valid charge to assessee the cases selected U/s 153A & 153C. 11. That the penalty is otherwise excessive, arbitrary, and deserves to be deleted

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

271(1)(c) dated 14/06/2019 & relevant quantum order U/s 153C / 143(3) dated 28/12/2018 are without jurisdiction. The penalty order as well as the quantum order are passed by the assessing officer who does not hold the valid charge to assessee the cases selected U/s 153A & 153C. 11. That the penalty is otherwise excessive, arbitrary, and deserves to be deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

153A of the Act on 30.09.2021 for A.Y. 2014-15, assessing total income at Rs. 1,77,71,141/- consequent upon the search and seizure action u/s 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

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

penalty on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of her income to the extent of the addition confirmed by ITAT of Rs.70,14,083/- u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.23,60,940/-, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. Before us, though several grounds of appeal have been raised, the solitary contention of the ld. Counsel

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

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act were competed on 25.03.2013, determining the income at Rs. 2,44,13,240/- after making addition of Rs. 2,43,07,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in bank beside other addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80C of the Act. 3. Assessee preferred

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

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 20-12-2010. 2. The Ld. AR argued that this year is unabated year and the impugned additions are not based on any incriminating material as found during search. Therefore, the impugned additions are not sustainable as per recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

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

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 20-12-2010. 2. The Ld. AR argued that this year is unabated year and the impugned additions are not based on any incriminating material as found during search. Therefore, the impugned additions are not sustainable as per recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case