SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 271(l)(c) cannot be levied. It is submitted that it be so held now.” 16. This, again, is not the issue before us. In “K.P. Madhusudanan” (supra), the Assessing Officer noted that the 17. demand draft and telegraphic transfer were not entered by the assessee in its cash book on the dates on which the same were purchased

ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT -2(3)(1), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 271(1)(c) which has to be met by him. I.T.A No. 192/Agra/2017 15 & ITA No.193/Agra/2017 Therefore, considering the observation of the AO in the assessment order alongside his action of non striking off the irrelevant clause in the notice renders the notice non complying with the principles of natural justice and thus deleted the penalty. 27. Again similar

TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

penalty notice dated 24.11.2016 issued u/s. 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act, as placed at page 16

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

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

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of the firm. 15. The Assessing Officer has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of section 271

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

16, Kamla Vihar Colony, Mathura-281001 Sanjay Place, Agra-282002 PAN : AAWPA0864C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M.M. Agarwal, CA Department by Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.04.2026 ORDER PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed in appeal No CIT(A)-IV/KNP/10374/2013-14

M/S MISS HILL EDUCATION SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 2. The ld. Counsel states as at the bar that ground no. 3 is not pressed. Rejected as not pressed. 3. Regarding ground nos. 1 and 2, the facts are that the AO rejected the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act, at the time of filing of return

SH. MANOJ AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O.-2(2), GWALIOR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is required to be failed and accordingly we dismiss both the appeals

271(1)(b) were also issued to the assessee. 4. Thereafter, a Notice under section 142(1) along with a detailed Questionnaire was issued to the assessee fixing compliance on 28.11.2011. In response to Assessee along with his Chartered Accountant appeared before the AO on 12.12.2011, filed written reply along with Audit Report offering a sum of Rs14

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

16 (Delhi) Pawan Kumar Jaggi vs. ACIT to buttress the point that even in case of adhoc disallowances, penalty under section 271(1)(c) could very well be imposed. And case law (1992) 60 Taxman 51 (Allahabad) CIT v/s Radhey Shyam Shyam Sunder Jaiswal is also referred to state that even estimated additions also attract impugned penalty proceedings

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

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

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

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

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

Section 250(6). I clarify that I have not commented on the merits of the issues in the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 113/Agr/2024 for assessment year 2015-16, stands allowed for statistical purposes. I order accordingly. ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17): 12. This appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 114/Agr/2024 for assessment

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. That the appellate order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the 7. learned CIT(A)-I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee’s case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961. That the appellate order dated 30th March, 2016 passed by the 7. learned CIT(A)-I, Agra is against the law and facts of the assessee’s case. The appellant also seeks permission to modify and/or adduce any other ground/grounds of appeal as the circumstances of the case might require

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

sections 147/143(3) of the Act. 10. The ld. DR has objected to the admission of the sale deed, as according to him, the sale deed dated is 29.12.2007 and it ought to have been filed before the AO, which was not done. 6 &ITA No. 146/Agra/2017 11. Having considered the matter in the light of the rival contentions

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

sections 147/143(3) of the Act. 10. The ld. DR has objected to the admission of the sale deed, as according to him, the sale deed dated is 29.12.2007 and it ought to have been filed before the AO, which was not done. 6 &ITA No. 146/Agra/2017 11. Having considered the matter in the light of the rival contentions