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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

22 Reasons for according Remarks: Approved u/s approval/rejection by the specified 148(d) as a fit case. authority to order u/s 148A(d) AND/OR Name: RAJAT BANSAL issuance of notice under section 148 of Designation: PCCIT, the Income-tax Act, 1961? DELHI Date: 20/03/2023 15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does

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

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

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

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

SHRI NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 74/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) Naresh Chandra Agarwal, ITO, -Ward 3 (1), Gwalior. Gwalior. PAN No.ABVPA0276E (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Mahesh Agarwal, AR Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 23.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 26.12.2017 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08, taking the following grounds

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 117/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) Siyaram Yadav ITO, -2 (5), Mainpur. S/o Gyan Singh R/o Baijnathpur, P.O. Nagla Julaha, District Mainpuri (U.P.) PAN No.EJMPS6432D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri R. C. Tomar, AR Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 12.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement 25.01.2018 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal

RADHIKA GARG,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 433/AGR/2024 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the AddL/ JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. ADDL/ JCIT(A)’, in short] dated 24.06.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessment proceeding itself we see no need to deal with ground No. 3 raised by the assessee to the effect that "on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming and the Assessing Officer erred in holding that the provisions of section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d

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

22,700/-. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against

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

22,700/-. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against

ANURAG MITTAL ,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

2. M/s Rachna Industries 2007-08 to 2013-14 7 3. Kusum Kumari Mittal 2008-09 to 2013-14 7 4. Anurag Mittal 2007-08 to 2013-14 7 In this context it would be extremely relevant to place on records that none of the above cases was ever discussed with the undersigned prior to submission of the draft assessment

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

D for obtaining approval of JCIT is not procedural only but a mandatory requirement, hence the cited decision by the Ld. D.R is not applicable in the case of present assessee. Under above circumstances, the issue raised regarding the validity of assessment orders in question without obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Act is decided in favour

LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

D for obtaining approval of JCIT is not procedural only but a mandatory requirement, hence the cited decision by the Ld. D.R is not applicable in the case of present assessee. Under above circumstances, the issue raised regarding the validity of assessment orders in question without obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Act is decided in favour

D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD,MATHURA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

D for obtaining approval of JCIT is not procedural only but a mandatory requirement, hence the cited decision by the Ld. D.R is not applicable in the case of present assessee. Under above circumstances, the issue raised regarding the validity of assessment orders in question without obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Act is decided in favour

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

D for obtaining approval of JCIT is not procedural only but a mandatory requirement, hence the cited decision by the Ld. D.R is not applicable in the case of present assessee. Under above circumstances, the issue raised regarding the validity of assessment orders in question without obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Act is decided in favour

SAURABH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

D for obtaining approval of JCIT is not procedural only but a mandatory requirement, hence the cited decision by the Ld. D.R is not applicable in the case of present assessee. Under above circumstances, the issue raised regarding the validity of assessment orders in question without obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Act is decided in favour

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. LT. SHRI MRADUL GARG, MATHURA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

D for obtaining approval of JCIT is not procedural only but a mandatory requirement, hence the cited decision by the Ld. D.R is not applicable in the case of present assessee. Under above circumstances, the issue raised regarding the validity of assessment orders in question without obtaining prior approval u/s. 153D of the Act is decided in favour

RAJESH LADHANI,FAIZABAD vs. DCIT CC , AGRA

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaita No. 106,107 & 108/Agra/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. Dy. C.I.T. –Central Circle, Rajesh Ladhani, 259, Savera Bhawan, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra. Faizabad. Pan: Abapl5646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. M/s Amrit Bottlers (P) Ltd. 2007-08 to 2013-14 7 3. M/s Saket Sales & Services 2008-09 to 2013-14 6 4. M/s Starweb Impex (P) Ltd. 2007-08 to 2013-14 7 5. M/s Ganesham Trexim (P) Ltd. 2007-08 to 2013-14 7 In this context it would be extremely relevant to place on records that

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

D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 452/AGR/2024 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 28.08.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, taking the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and in any view of the matter, the authorities below have erred in making and upholding the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in business