BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

35 Further, in our view, there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the FAO for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act or even for passing assessment or reassessment

SMT. BINA WADHWA,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2010-11

35 and section 37 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as applicable on Valuer as per provisions of sub section (2) of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, when matter is referred to Valuation officer for valuation. 2.3 Because the AVO has not acted judicially and fairly, rather acted arbitrarily and also did not conform to the principles of natural

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

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

reassessment stood completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-3- 2024 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 56,35

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

35,000/- Rs.1,95,00,000/- with HDFC Bank Total Assessed Income Rs.1,95,00,000/- 5. The ld. CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned consolidated order, allowed all the appeals filed by the assessee for AYs. 2003-04 to 2005-06. I.T.A No. 266 to 269/Agra/2013 6 6. The ld. DR has contended 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

reassessment of the assessees claiming deduction under section 10A, it has been decided that the claim of deduction under section 10A of the Income-tax Act, shall not be denied to STP units only on the ground that the approval/registration to such units has been granted by the Directors of Software Technology Parks. However, it has to be ensured that

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

SH VISWADEEPAK TIWARI,GWALIOR vs. ITO 3(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 148 of the Act stood issued\nto him in response to which, return of income was filed on 20-4-2019\ndeclaring total income of Rs 4,98,730/-. The reassessment was framed on 2-\n12-2019 by making an addition of Rs 3,35

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called

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

35 which relates to the addition of Rs.11,86,075/- in respect of unexplained investment in the construction of Hotel Haveli.” 2. The ld. AR has submitted that he has moved an application for additional ground vide letter dated 08.07.2019 and the same may kindly be admitted. Additional ground raised by the assessee provides as under : Because the so-called