MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT , FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

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 in such a case amount to a change of opinion, not permissible under the Act. 2.6 The Office Note of the ld. Assessing Officer to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) is reproduced as under. Office Note 1. No AIR/CIB information was available in this case. 2

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 in such a case amount to a change of opinion, not permissible under the Act. 2.6 The Office Note of the ld. Assessing Officer to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) is reproduced as under. Office Note 1. No AIR/CIB information was available in this case. 2

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

143(2) of the Act. It was submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CBDT guidelines para 3(h) dated 02.09.2011. The registration u/s. 12A was granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 14.09.2011 and it is prayed that the first proviso to sub-section (2) to section 12A is applicable

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

2 | P a g e Asst Year: 2012-13 Yugal Kishor Agarwal information and replies during the course of reassessment proceedings. The assessee was having income from salary, income from house property, Remuneration and interest from Partnership firm and income from other sources. While framing reassessment order u/s 147 read with Section 143

SARVESH DEVI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MADAN LAL TOMAR),AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Ward-4(3)(1), 51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eshpd4540M Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

2. Though the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, I find that the preliminary issue raised by the assessee is challenging the validity of framing of assessment on a dead person. Since, it goes to the root of the matter, I deem it fit to address the same first. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused

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

143(3) vide order, dated\n09.04.2021, wherein, the addition of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on\naccount 'excess salary' paid to two employees u/s 40A(2b) of the Act.\nThe said assessment was then subject matter of reassessment u/s 148\nbased on the reason to believe of the AO that the assessee had taken\nbogus purchase thro accommodation

VEERENDRA SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO,W 2(1)(5),ORAI, JALAUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kocharveerendra Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Vill. Dakor Mohana, Orai, Ward 2(1)(5), Orai, Distt. Jalaun (Up)-285001. V. Distt. Jalaun (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbjps 3108 J Appellant .. Respondent

143(2) of the Income Tax Act-1961. 2. That the Present assessment order is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed as the reasons recorded by the Ld AO are factually incorrect and without application of mind. Further the necessary approvals taken are also without application of mind

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘) dated by the Assessing Officer, Agra (hereinafter referred to as ‗ld. AO‘). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the revenue before us by 846 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined

SARVESH KUMAR,FARRUKHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(2) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Kumar, Vs. Ito, Okharu Khanpur, Ward-4(2)(2), Farrukhabad, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad Ho 209601 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dsqpk3348G Assessee By : Shri Swaran Singh, Ca Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

2(a) of Section 147 of the Act kicks in. Accordingly, in order to frame any assessment, the ld AO should have issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on the assessee in the manner known to law, then proceed to frame the reassessment u/s 143

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

RATNESH KUMAR JAIN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

143(2) was issued prior to framing of\nreassessment order. It was submitted that the reassessment is bad in\nlaw as the assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee\nhas shown lower turnover, while the additions have been made on the\ngrounds of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account by invoking\nthe provisions of section

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

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

143(2) read with section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining

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

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

143(2) read with section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining

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

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

143(2) read with section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining

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

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

143(2) read with section 142(1) of the Act were also issued and served upon the assessee, who responded in consequence thereof. After considering the assessee’s reply dated 01.04.2021, Ld. Assessing Officer found that assessee owned three house properties, out of which one house property No. 14, Kamla Bihar Colony, Mathura was self occupied property and remaining

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

143(3) read with section 147 and sustained/enhanced by the Learned JCIT(Appeals) is bad in law and void ab initio; all additions and enhancement so made/confirmed are liable to be deleted. 2. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the reopening under section 147 is illegal and without jurisdiction as there was no tangible material

ANIL KUMAR YADAV LEGAL HEIR SMT. LONG SHREE ,MAINPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(2)(4), MAINPURI

2)(4)\n(L/H Smt. Long Shree)\nबनाम /\nMainpuri\nMain Bazar, Karhal\nVs.\nMainpuri 205001\nस्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAAPY-8480-E\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nअपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant by: Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. AR\nप्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent by: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava - Ld. Sr. DR\nसुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing\n20-02-2025\nघोषणाकीतारीख / Date of Pronouncement