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, the Assessing Officer made an addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share application money received from M/s. Silver Heritage Nivas Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, however, has fully satisfied the conditions envisaged in section 68 of the Act and has fully discharged the initial onus cast upon it by law, by submitting the following documents

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, the Assessing Officer made an addition u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share application money received from M/s. Silver Heritage Nivas Pvt. Ltd. The assessee, however, has fully satisfied the conditions envisaged in section 68 of the Act and has fully discharged the initial onus cast upon it by law, by submitting the following documents

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)

reassessment passed under clause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision has also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under clause

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

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

reassessment passed under clause (b) of section 153A in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. The provision has also been made applicable to orders of assessment passed under clause

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

25-07-\n2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer\n[AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26-12-2018. The sole grievance\nof the assessee is computation of capital gains. The registry has noted\ndelay of 297 days in the appeal which stand condoned.\n2. The Ld. AR, at the outset

DEEPAK KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O SHRI LATE RATAN LAL AGRAWAL,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO, TIKAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward No. 12, Purani Tikamgarh Tehsil, New Housing Board, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Axapa3069L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

25,500/- be not added to the total income as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. No response was filed by the Assessee thereon and accordingly, the learned AO completed the reassessment

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)

25. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 8. The Ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A), Aligarh, and invited our attention to the APB Vol. I paras 1 to 5 at pages 6 to 13, wherein he has challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings before Ld.CIT(A), Aligarh. The ld. Counsel has challenged the validity

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 263 of the Act as confirmed by the Tribunal is allowed to stand, then the very purpose of the remand order against the original reassessment proceedings would become a fait accompli. 25

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 263 of the Act as confirmed by the Tribunal is allowed to stand, then the very purpose of the remand order against the original reassessment proceedings would become a fait accompli. 25

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

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

reassessment proceedings. It would Page 12 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO result in deletion of all the additions. Ground No. 1 of appeal of assessee is, accordingly, allowed. In view of 9 ITA No. 358/Agra/2011 this, the other grounds have only academic interest and as such, we do not find it necessary to decide the issue on merits

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

25. 10A, is foreign exchange which is for the time being treated by the Reserve Bank of India as convertible foreign exchange for the purpose of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and any Rules framed thereunder, or any corresponding law for the time being in force. 26. As per the Authorities below, the unit of the assessee has been

BHAGIRATH PAKHARIA,JHANSI vs. WARD 2 (3)(1), JHANSI

25-10-2024. The Ld. AR\nstated that the issue is of valuation only and the assessee has already\nfiled rectification application u/s 154 against the assessment order which\nis pending. The same would have material bearing on the penalty appeal.\nConsidering the same, we restore the issue of impugned penalty back to\nthe file of Ld. AO for fresh

RAJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO-3(3), MATHURA

In the result appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Raj Singh, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Village- Kharaut Chhata, Mathura Mathura. Pan: Akvpr1777Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

25. The ITAT quashed Notice under section 148 by observing that: “From the reading of the reasons, it is quite evident that the ld. AO has not applied his mind while recording his 23 reasons without assigning any valid reasons that no reasons have been given to make out a case that income of the assessee has escaped assessment

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 shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner

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 shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner

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 shall be made by an Assessment Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 153A of the Act or the assessment year referred to in Clause (b) of Sub Section 153B of the Act except the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner

ANITA YADAV,MATHURA vs. ITO -1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest