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

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.65

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

2. Facts, for convenience, are being taken from ITA No. 118/Agra/2015, the assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 against the CIT(A)’s order confirming penalty of Rs.98,000/- imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. AIR information was received in respect of the assessee, as per which, cash deposits amounting to Rs.6541003

BLM HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED ,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act') dated 15.04.2019 by the Assessing Officer, DCIT,\nCircle-4 (2)(1), Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').\n2.\nThough the assessee had raised several grounds of appeal, the only\neffective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Learned

M/S RAMESHTH CONSTRUCTION ,JHANSI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(3)(1) , JHANSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

17,564/. The assessment was\ncompleted u/s 143(3) of the Act at total income Rs 4751370/- on 31-\n12-2012. The case of assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and\nnotice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31-10-2014 and properly\nserved to the assessee. The A.O has completed the assessment

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

A.C.I.T.-4(1), AGRA vs. M/S ROGER INDUSTRIES LTD., AGRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

u/s 2(22)(e). To which the assessee replied that since the assessee company has purchased shoes from M/S Euro Safety Footwear (P) Ltd., these are commercial transactions and the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) are not attracted. The assessee believed that the reply would be convincing and did not file any other evidence at that point of time

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 31.12.2016 by the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Etawah (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 975 days. Considering

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

17 Affidavit of Ramesh Chandra Garg aged about 55 Years son of Shri Tola Ram Garg resident of Jiwaji Ganj, Morena in relation to the assessment proceedings initiated under section 153A in the cases of (i) Sunil Kumar &Mamta Mittal. Morena (2) Rakesh Shivhare& Nisha Mittal, Morena (3) Shyam Sunder & Manish Jaori, morena (4) Sakshi &ChhayaBhattad, Morena (5) Vandana Jain

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

17 Affidavit of Ramesh Chandra Garg aged about 55 Years son of Shri Tola Ram Garg resident of Jiwaji Ganj, Morena in relation to the assessment proceedings initiated under section 153A in the cases of (i) Sunil Kumar &Mamta Mittal. Morena (2) Rakesh Shivhare& Nisha Mittal, Morena (3) Shyam Sunder & Manish Jaori, morena (4) Sakshi &ChhayaBhattad, Morena (5) Vandana Jain

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

17 Affidavit of Ramesh Chandra Garg aged about 55 Years son of Shri Tola Ram Garg resident of Jiwaji Ganj, Morena in relation to the assessment proceedings initiated under section 153A in the cases of (i) Sunil Kumar &Mamta Mittal. Morena (2) Rakesh Shivhare& Nisha Mittal, Morena (3) Shyam Sunder & Manish Jaori, morena (4) Sakshi &ChhayaBhattad, Morena (5) Vandana Jain

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

17 Affidavit of Ramesh Chandra Garg aged about 55 Years son of Shri Tola Ram Garg resident of Jiwaji Ganj, Morena in relation to the assessment proceedings initiated under section 153A in the cases of (i) Sunil Kumar &Mamta Mittal. Morena (2) Rakesh Shivhare& Nisha Mittal, Morena (3) Shyam Sunder & Manish Jaori, morena (4) Sakshi &ChhayaBhattad, Morena (5) Vandana Jain

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

17 Affidavit of Ramesh Chandra Garg aged about 55 Years son of Shri Tola Ram Garg resident of Jiwaji Ganj, Morena in relation to the assessment proceedings initiated under section 153A in the cases of (i) Sunil Kumar &Mamta Mittal. Morena (2) Rakesh Shivhare& Nisha Mittal, Morena (3) Shyam Sunder & Manish Jaori, morena (4) Sakshi &ChhayaBhattad, Morena (5) Vandana Jain

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

2. In this case, return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 was filed on 29.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 4,86,270/-. Subsequently, the case was taken up for I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018 3 & S.A. No.06/Agra/2018 (in I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018) scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.1

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

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

2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee participated in the 7 | P a g e ITA No.113, 114 & 115/Agr/2024 assessment proceedings, and filed part-replies to the queries made by the AO during assessment proceedings. The AO obtained bank statements directly from the bank