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

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

20,500. Proceedings under Section 148 were initiated, leading to reassessment under Section 147 r.w.s 144B, with disallowances and additions

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

Section 148 of the Act dated 30-03-2021. The reassessment ultimately stood completed by treating M/s Capital Trade Link Ltd as a penny stock and the sale proceeds of shares received by the Assessee in the sum of Rs. 95,20

GUMAN SINGH KUSHWAH,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

section 147 of the Act by the Learned AO. In the reassessment order, the Learned AO noted that assessee had purchased plot for Rs 71 lakhs during the year under consideration from Mr. Purushottam Khandelwal. The seller had not provided his PAN to the assessee. Hence, the assessee should have deducted TDS at the rate of 20

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

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

reassessment. 23. In K.S. Rashid & Son v. ITO [1964] 52 ITR 355 (SC) a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held: “The second point which is very important is that in regard to the cases Page 20 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO falling under section

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 of income of the other person would be in accordance with the provisions of section 153A and also relied upon the judgments of “Supreme Court” in the case that the block period proceedings u/s 153C of the Act has to be computed from the date of receipt of books of accounts or documents

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, 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 of income of the other person would be in accordance with the provisions of section 153A and also relied upon the judgments of “Supreme Court” in the case that the block period proceedings u/s 153C of the Act has to be computed from the date of receipt of books of accounts or documents

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 of income of the other person would be in accordance with the provisions of section 153A and also relied upon the judgments of “Supreme Court” in the case that the block period proceedings u/s 153C of the Act has to be computed from the date of receipt of books of accounts or documents

SOURABH JAIN,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Saurabh Jain, Guna. 1, Near Sanjeevani Vs. Hospital Garha Colony, Guna, Madhaya Pradesh-473001 Pan-Bgjpj7915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment proceedings, transactions in the said account were incorporated and loss of Rs.63,20/- was claimed. The Ld. AR further submitted that the other bank account with Bandhan Bank are duly recorded in the books of accounts and, therefore, the action of the AO in re-opening the assessment is bad in law. The Ld. AR further contended that

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

reassessment was completed u/s 147\nread with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20

RAJESH TYAGI,AMBAH vs. ITO WARD 1, MORENA, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Act is bad in law, invalid and void-ab-initio. 7. BECAUSE under the facts and circumstance and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 5,60,000/-on account of unexplained money for cash deposit in bank under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE

SANSKAR NAGAR,JHANSI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

Appeals stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.351/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.352/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.353/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.354/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.349/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.346/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.347/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.348/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18; Smc Bench) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.350/Agr/2024

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 12. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with regard

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KANPUR

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 12. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with regard

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 12. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with regard

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 12. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with regard

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KANPUR

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 12. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with regard

S G COMMERCIAL,JHANSI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

Appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.364/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.365/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.368/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.370/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.366/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.367/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.369/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.371/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit (Central Circle) M/Ss G Commercial बनाम/ Vs. 452/2A, Cp Mission Compound Agra Jhansi Up 284003

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. 12. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain (supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with regard