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

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

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.518 & 519/Agr/2025 9. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Dt: 17/09/2025 & the penalty order dated 14/06/2019 is bad in law as it was passed without affording adequate opportunity of being heard, and without considering the detailed explanation and documentary evidence filed by the appellant. 10. That the order

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.518 & 519/Agr/2025 9. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Dt: 17/09/2025 & the penalty order dated 14/06/2019 is bad in law as it was passed without affording adequate opportunity of being heard, and without considering the detailed explanation and documentary evidence filed by the appellant. 10. That the order

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

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 which the assessee filed return of income, declaring the same income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s

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

2 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 which the assessee filed return of income, declaring the same income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,38,99,338/- u/s

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi in first appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10302965, wherein Ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte and confirmed the 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

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

15 has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi in first appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10302965, wherein Ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte and confirmed the 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

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

15 has been filed against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi in first appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10302965, wherein Ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte and confirmed the 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

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