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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

2 | P a g e case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 was issued to the appellant after obtaining necessary approvals and after following the due procedure of law. Show-cause Notice dated 27-03-2022, wherein, a draft assessment order containing proposed additions was also provided to the appellant inviting objection against

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Anju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D-26, Kamla Nagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awtpa4297L Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

d) of the Act dated 27-3-2023. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 of the Act stood issued to the Assessee on 27-3-2023 after taking prior approval under Section 151 of the Act from the competent authority. The reassessment stood completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-3- 2024 determining total income

AVNINDRA MISHRA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) Shri Avnindra Mishra, Vs..ITO,-1(3)(1), 230/136, Chandralok Colony, Mathura. Krishna Nagar, Mathura.281004 (U.P.) PAN No.CDRPM5738F (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee by Shri M. M. Agarwal, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 28.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 05.07.2018 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal

SH. SANJEEV PARASHAR,ALIGARH vs. I.T.O., WARD-1, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri Sanjeev Parashar Vs..Ito, Ward -1, A-6, Mahavir Park, Extension, Aligarh. Aligarh. Panno.Ajopp3902F (Assessee) (Revenue)

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is assessee’s appeal for A. Y. 2011-12. The following grounds have been raised: “1. Because the ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the order of A.O. 2. Because the ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the valuation of the property disclosed by the appellant was supported by the valuation

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 422/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) Anita Yadav, W/o Dr. Sarijit Vs..ITO,-1(3)(1), Yadav B-99, Moti Kunj, Mathura, Mathura. (U.P.) PAN No.AERPY4688P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri M. M. Agarwal, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 28.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 04.07.2018 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal

BIJENDRA KUMAR,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) Bijendra Kumar Vs..ITO,-1 (3)(1), Village Chandra Nagar, P.O. Kota Mathura. Mathura 281004 (U.P.) PAN No.CHJPK7757C (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri M. M. Agarwal, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 28.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2018 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for assessment

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S WELCOME COIR INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

D Block, Prashant Vihar, Rohini Vihar, New Delhi. PAN No.AAACW0311P (Revenue) (Assessee) Revenue by Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT. DR. Assessee by Shri Pradeep Kumar Sahegal, AR. Date of Hearing 28.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement 16.10.2017 ORDER PER BENCH: ITA Nos. 266 to 268/Agra/2013. These three appeals involve a single effective common issue. As such, they are being disposed of by this

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) Shri Ghanshyam, S/o Shri Mohan Vs..ITO, 3(2), Lal, Saraswat Para, Farrah, Mathura. Mathura. PAN No.HDUPS9702M (Assessee) (Revenue) I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) Shri Ghanshyam, S/o Shri Mohan Vs..ITO, 1, 3(2), Lal, Saraswat Para, Farrah, Mathura. Mathura. PAN No.HDUPS9702M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) Shri Ghanshyam, S/o Shri Mohan Vs..ITO, 3(2), Lal, Saraswat Para, Farrah, Mathura. Mathura. PAN No.HDUPS9702M (Assessee) (Revenue) I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) Shri Ghanshyam, S/o Shri Mohan Vs..ITO, 1, 3(2), Lal, Saraswat Para, Farrah, Mathura. Mathura. PAN No.HDUPS9702M (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri