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

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

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

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

2) does not mention any reason for coming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under section 148. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission. He did not himself record that he was satisfied that this 8 | P a g e was a fit case

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(3)/ 144 r.w.s. Section 147 of the Act. I find this issue was subject

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

22. While confirming the assessment order, the ld. CIT(A) observed that Gwalior, where the unit had been set up, had not been notified as an STP by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry; that the assessee had not obtained approval from the Inter-Ministerial Committee of the Department of Information Technology; that the lease period for the leased premises

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

e) Because the learned AO has initiated reassessment proceedings U/S 147 of the Act in the case of the assessee company solely on the basis of suggestion of DDIT(Inv.) therefore in view of well settled law the reassessment proceedings being initiated solely on the instance or dictatum of higher or superior authority and not on the basis of satisfaction

VIKAS CHANDRA HUF,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvikas Chandra Huf, Vs. Cit(Appeals), D-117, Ramesh Vihar, Nfac, Delhi Ramghar Road, Aligarh Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakjv9476N Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 450/AGR/2025 for AY 2020-21, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] dated 04.08.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

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

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)

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

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)

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

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)

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

PAWAN AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

22\nis extracted below:-\n22 Reasons\nfor\naccording Remarks: Approved u/s\napproval/rejection by the specified | 148A(d) as a fit case.\nauthority to order u/s 148A(d)\nAND/OR issuance of notice under\nsection 148 of the Income-tax Act,\n1961?\nName: RAJAT BANSAL\nDesignation: PCCIT,\nDELHI\nDate: 20/03/2023\n15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 213/AGR/2025 for AY 2016-17, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 16/05/2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings. Thus the Pr. CIT has erred in imitating proceedings U/S 263. 2 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 5. That the Asstt. Order dated 31-10-2019 is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.” 5. The order of the ld. PCIT in the case of Sarika Srivastava reveals that the assessee is a Doctor

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings. Thus the Pr. CIT has erred in imitating proceedings U/S 263. 2 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 5. That the Asstt. Order dated 31-10-2019 is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.” 5. The order of the ld. PCIT in the case of Sarika Srivastava reveals that the assessee is a Doctor

PANKAJ SUJORIA,MANSAROVAR COLONY vs. ITO 1(1), GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Pankaj Sujoria, Vs. Ito, A-481, Mansarovar Ward-1(1), Colony, Shahpura, Gwalior Bhopal, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arzps0280L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 323/AGR/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the Jr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. JCIT(A)’, in short] dated 03.01.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated