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

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [subsection (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner]." The above provisions

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

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [subsection (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner]." The above provisions

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

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [subsection (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner]." The above provisions

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

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [subsection (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner]." The above provisions

DIXIT RICE MILL ,AURAIYA vs. DCIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section 163 treating the assessee as the agent

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

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

271(1)(b) were not answered by the appellant. Thereafter, a show- cause notice under section 144 was issued by the AO. on 16.11.2016 and on its non-service through the speed post, ITI was deputed to serve it personally on the appellant. Vide his report dated 06.12.2016, the ITI has reported that Shri Tej Singh had expired

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

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

271(1)(b) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Assessing\nOfficer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').\n2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and\nhence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the\nsake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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

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

271(1)(b) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Assessing\nOfficer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').\n2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and\nhence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the\nsake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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

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

sections": [ "147", "144B", "271(1)(b)", "69A", "Chapter VIA", "46A", "148", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence for adjudication of reassessment

SHRI SHANKAR ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,ALIGARH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Shankar Ispat Pvt. Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac/Ito Ltd., Near Stha Sugar, Ward-4(1)(1) Mills Kasimpur Road, Aligarh-110001 Aligarh, U.P.-202001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aancs6930P Appellant .. Respondent

271(1)(b) penalty of Rs.10,000/- since the assessee failed to comply with his section 142(1) notice issued during scrutiny proceedings. And that he has further filed any cogent explanation all along explaining his non-cooperation during the course of reassessment

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

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

271(1)(b) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Assessing\nOfficer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Id. AO').\nAppeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and\nhence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the\nsake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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)

271-283). 9. In the above view of the matter and guided by the above statements in law particularly by the Jurisdictional High Court in K.M Bansal (supra) and as finally concluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sahara India Firm (supra) objection of the Ld. DR’s that act of granting Approval under section 153D

NEERAJ KUMAR,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1)(3), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshneeraj Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18/24, Ghadi Hussaini Ward-2(1)(3), Prakash Nagar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajwpn8393C Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Garg, Adv Shri Pradumn Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

271(1)(b). Neeraj Kumar 2. Because the learned CIT(A) orders dated 25/08/2025 and 24/09/2025 under section 154 failed to rectify clear mistakes, ignored jurisdictional defects, and were passed without proper application of mind. 3. Because the notice issued under section 148 was never validly served on the appellant, as the address used by the Department does not belong

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

reassessment jurisdiction.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["147", "148", "69A", "50C", "56(2)(vii)(b)", "271(1)(c)", "270A", "154"], "issues": "Whether

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

b) read with Explanation-2(vii) to section 10A. In ‘Xerox India Ltd. vs. ACIT’, 127 TTJ 84 (Del), the Tribunal was 31. considering the Ministry of Commerce’s Notification no.33/(RE)/92-97, dated 22.03.1994, notifying the Software Technology Parks (STP) Scheme, which was amended by the above Notification No. S.O. 388(E), dated 30.04.1995. It was held that where

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals

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

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. Appeals in ITA Nos. 388 to 391/AGR/2025 involve identical issues and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Similarly, the appeals