HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing as under

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing as under

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing as under

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing as under

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

10. In this regard, it would be gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT reported in 464 ITR 430 (Bombay) (HC) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court has dealt with this issue in detail by holding in favour of the assessee by observing as under

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

reassessment under section 148 of the Act. The said approval cannot be granted in a mechanical manner as it acts as a linkage between the facts considered and conclusion reached. In the instant case, merely appending the phrase "Yes" does not appropriately align with the mandate of Section 151 of the Act as it fails to set out any degree

SMT. VIDHYA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(4), AGRA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

10. In view of the above discussions and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the very initiation of reassessment proceedings, on the facts of this case and on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, is bad in law. We, therefore, quash the reassessment proceedings. As we have quashed

SH. MANOJ GOYAL,AGRA vs. DY CIT,CC, AGRA

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.185/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.186/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.187/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.188/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Manoj Goyal बनाम/ Dcit Central Circle 22, Nehru Nagar, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Abcpg-3816-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

10. Section 153D of the Act relevant for our purposes is to be noted hereinunder: "Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition. 153D.—No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rankof Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section

SH. MANOJ GOYAL ,AGRA vs. DY CIT,CC,, AGRA

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.185/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.186/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.187/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.188/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Manoj Goyal बनाम/ Dcit Central Circle 22, Nehru Nagar, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Abcpg-3816-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

10. Section 153D of the Act relevant for our purposes is to be noted hereinunder: "Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition. 153D.—No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rankof Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section

SH. MANOJ GOYAL,AGRA vs. DY CIT ,CC, AGRA

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.185/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.186/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.187/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.188/Agr/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Manoj Goyal बनाम/ Dcit Central Circle 22, Nehru Nagar, Agra – 282002 Agra Vs. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Abcpg-3816-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

10. Section 153D of the Act relevant for our purposes is to be noted hereinunder: "Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition. 153D.—No order of assessment or reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rankof Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. We have considered rival submissions, material on records and the case laws relied up by both the parties. It was made clear to the parties that as the case is being heard in respect of ground No. 1 to 3, pertaining to validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act based on reasons recorded and therefore, if such

PREMWATI SUMAN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(3), AGRA

In the result both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. We have considered rival submissions, material on records and the case laws relied up by both the parties. It was made clear to the parties that as the case is being heard in respect of ground No. 1 to 4, pertaining to validity of proceedings under section 147 of the Act based on reasons recorded and therefore, if such

RUBY JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

38) of the Act. f. HPC Biosciences Ltd is a scrip listed on Bombay stock Exchange (BSE). g. The shares were sold by the assessee in secondary market, through a stock broker duly registered with SEBI in the recognised stock exchange. h. The sale transaction carried out in secondary market had been duly subjected to Securities Transaction

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessed the income and charged interest and levied penalty. The Commissioner (appeals) allowed relief partly but Page 10 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO the Tribunal concluded the issue in favour of the assessees. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeals, that the only information was that the assessee had taken a bogus entry of capital gains by paying cash along

RAJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(3), MATHURA

In the result appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. Pan: Akvpr1777Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

10 objection against validity of re-assessment proceedings itself, it had conceded the same and the assessee did not have any grievance at that time. Upon appeal by the assessee before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, the Hon’ble High Court held that it is settled law that the reassessment notice is a jurisdictional notice and it is equally

M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

10. The assessee filed a rejoinder (impugned order, pages 21-22) to the remand report, reiterating the aforesaid submissions made before the AO vide reply dated 16.06.2016. It was stated in the rejoinder that: “i. Annexure "A" is not a seized document. Seems to be prepared by the department itself and hence cannot be relied upon. So called Cash Book

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

10. The assessee filed a rejoinder (impugned order, pages 21-22) to the remand report, reiterating the aforesaid submissions made before the AO vide reply dated 16.06.2016. It was stated in the rejoinder that: “i. Annexure "A" is not a seized document. Seems to be prepared by the department itself and hence cannot be relied upon. So called Cash Book

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, the CO raised by the assessee and appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

reassessment shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner