HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

reassessment proceedings are ex facie bad in law, being initiated without satisfying the conditions stipulated in first proviso to Section 147, and are thus liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action for reopening can be taken beyond four years unless there is a failure

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

reassessment proceedings are ex facie bad in law, being initiated without satisfying the conditions stipulated in first proviso to Section 147, and are thus liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action for reopening can be taken beyond four years unless there is a failure

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

6] [In favour of assessee]\nii).\nReliance is being placed on the judgment of CIT Vs. Nirav\nModi, 77 Taxmann.com 15 (SC), in which, it has been held as\nunder:-\n“Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and\n2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts from

SMT. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

133(6), evident from the Assessing Order, and no approval has been taken for issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, hence reopening of case without valid approval of Joint Commissioner is bad in law. 2- Because as per sub section (2) of section 151 no notice shall be issued under section 148 by Assessing officer

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AGRA, SANJAY PLACE vs. MAMTA AGARWAL, BHAGWATI INTERNATIONAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

reassessment proceedings, notice u/s 133(6) ofd the Act was issued to the Id AO to Prakash Gupta and no response was received from him. This goes to prove that the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act stood served on him but the party are chosen not to respond for which the assessee cannot be faulted. The Id NFAC

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

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

133(6) to the assessee and required to confirm the transaction as to how the capital gains arise out of the transaction. It would mean that there was no definite information received from ITO 6(3), Jhansi that the Page 8 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO assessee earned any capital gains out of the sale transaction of land

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

6] [In favour of assessee]\nii).\nAssessee-\nReliance is being placed on the judgment of CIT Vs. Nirav\nModi, 77 Taxmann.com 15 (SC), in which, it has been held as\nunder:-\n“Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment years 2007-08 and\n2008-09 - Assessee received certain amount as gifts

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment order u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) dated 24.10.2019, the Assessing Officer made two additions – firstly, disallowance of Rs.12,15,413/- claimed by the assessee as expenditure against income from other sources by invoking provision of Section 57(iii) of the Act as the assessee could not furnish any evidences in respect of these expenses , and secondly disallowance

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

6. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the Ld PCIT on verification of the assessment record noticed that the AO had not completed the assessment proceedings as he has failed to make proper enquiry as well as did not followed the due procedure and supposed to have made due verification. He submitted that

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

6. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the Ld PCIT on verification of the assessment record noticed that the AO had not completed the assessment proceedings as he has failed to make proper enquiry as well as did not followed the due procedure and supposed to have made due verification. He submitted that

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

6. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue submitted that the Ld PCIT on verification of the assessment record noticed that the AO had not completed the assessment proceedings as he has failed to make proper enquiry as well as did not followed the due procedure and supposed to have made due verification. He submitted that

BIKESH KUMAR,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(1) , FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbikesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagla Bhoop Nasirpur, Ward-2(2)(1), Shikhabad Firozabad, Firozabad Firozabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bglpk0327A Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

133(6) of the Act was issued to the assessee seeking information about the source of such cash deposit which was not complied with by the assessee. Accordingly, the Learned AO concluded that the income shown in the return is not commensurate with the cash deposits made in the bank Bikesh Kumar account and accordingly the differential amount represent income

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Anil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dy. Cit, 44, R. S. Residency, Circle-2(1)(1), Dayal Bagh, Agra, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampa3335J Assessee By : Shri Rajni Kant Verma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

133(6) of the Act on 18-01-2018 asking for the source of cash deposits, to the assessee. The assessee enclosed the copy of income tax return together with the computation of income and stated that cash was deposited out of funds available with him. Since the reply given was very general, the Learned AO formed a belief that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

133(6) of the Act, a final show-cause notice enclosing the draft assessment order was issued to the Assessee on 24-03-2022. In response to the show-cause notice, the Assessee filed his written reply on 26-03-2022 filing his objections to the proposed additions thereon. The Learned JAO, after taking into account all the objections

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S FEDERAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

reassessment completed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) in respect of purchases of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’, which has been treated as bogus. The assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that no purchases of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’ have been made and, in fact, certain purchases have been made by the “HMA Agro Industries Ltd.”, which is a separate assessee

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

133(6) of the Act (APB-17) which nowhere requires the assessee to prove the sources of investment in premiums paid against policy of Birla SunlifeInsurance. Vide this notice the learned Assessing officer has only called upon the assessee to furnish year wise and policy wise break up of premiums paid against policy of Birla Sunlife Insurance. In fact this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated\nassessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material\nfound during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of\nthe Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened