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

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

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

reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases to the Assessing Officer based

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

reassessment then the same would equally ITA No. 432/AGR/2025 apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases

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

reassessment then the same would equally ITA No. 432/AGR/2025 apply for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. (iii) The conclusion at the bottom of page 2 in paragraph 3 of the Office Memorandum that "Therefore, as provided in the scheme the notice under section 148 of the Act is issued on automated allocation of cases

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

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

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

section, cannot be used for the purpose of initiating reassessment proceedings, in my opinion, is not correct.” We do not find any error in the decision of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, grounds Nos. 1.1 to 1.4 are dismissed. 7. Grounds Nos. 2.1 to 2.3 are on merits. The assessee, Smt. Bina Wadhva filed the return of income declaring

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)

Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii). where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/or relevant portions

RAVENDRA SINGH,AGRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and direct the ld

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Ravendra Singh Vs. Acit, 28, Tota Ka Taal Circle 1(2)(1), Loha Mandi, Uttar Pradesh Agra Pan : Abyps5329K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Agarwal, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order

39,67,600, which is unjustified and contrary to law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for alleged non- prosecution without affording proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing. 2 | P a g e Although hearing notices may have been sent through the e-filing portal or e-mail, the assessee, a 79-year

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, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SH. VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL, AGRA

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

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

USHA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ITO 4(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

39,730/-fairly Returned by the 'appellant' is erroneous, illegal bad on facts and in law. 5. BECAUSE, the 'AO' was highly unjustified as well as unfair in allowing cost of acquisition alongwith improvement as claimed by the 'appellant' evidenced by Balance Sheet(s) filed on year to year basis with the Department without any evidence to negate such claim

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

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

39, to state that common approval has been given through above communication in all 12 cases for different assessees. The Ld. AR thus submitted that the approval has been given in a mechanical manner which run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta (147 Taxmann.com 288) and therefore

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

39, to state that common approval has been given through above communication in all 12 cases for different assessees. The Ld. AR thus submitted that the approval has been given in a mechanical manner which run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta (147 Taxmann.com 288) and therefore

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

39, to state that common approval has been given through above communication in all 12 cases for different assessees. The Ld. AR thus submitted that the approval has been given in a mechanical manner which run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta (147 Taxmann.com 288) and therefore

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

39, to state that common approval has been given through above communication in all 12 cases for different assessees. The Ld. AR thus submitted that the approval has been given in a mechanical manner which run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sapna Gupta (147 Taxmann.com 288) and therefore