GUMAN SINGH KUSHWAH,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

40,000. Hence, these two aspects were considered to be income escaping assessment in the hands of the assessee and accordingly, the assessment was reopened vide issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on 30-3-2021. In response to the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee did not file any return of income

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

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

reassessment proceedings after more than four years would be clearly barred by time. 22. A similar provision, namely, Section 34(1A)(ii) existed under the Income Tax Act, 1922. A full Bench of this Court in Jai Kishan Srivastava v. ITO [1960] 40

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

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

40,000/- with the valuation report submitted by the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before ITAT, raising following grounds : “1. Because having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 and sustained/enhanced by the Learned JCIT(Appeals

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

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-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

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

reassessment of income of the other person would be in\naccordance with the provisions of section 153A and also relied upon\nthe judgments of \"Supreme Court\" in the case that the block period\nproceedings u/s 153C of the Act has to be computed from the date of\nreceipt of books of accounts or documents

JAY SINGH,MORENA vs. ITO-1, MORENA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jay Singh, Vs. Ito, Gram Khaneta, Maharajpur, Ward-1, Morena, Madhya Pradesh Morena (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cfwps1529H

reassessment proceedings, notice under section 142(1) of the Act stood issued to the assessee. Assessee, being an uneducated person and having no knowledge of operating the computer and income tax portal could not make compliance to the notices issued by the learned AO, which ultimately culminated in framing of assessment under section 144 read with section

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

reassessment is void ab initio 4. Because the assessment framed ex-parte under section 147/144 is bad in law, since notices were never served at the correct address and the appellant was denied proper opportunity of being heard. 5. Because the reopening under section 147 is mechanical, without application of mind, based on no new tangible material, and in violation

NATTHI SINGH,DEHTORA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Natthi Singh, Vs. Ito, Mohhamadpur, Dehtora, Up Ward (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jfqps8274N Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

Section 148 was served on the assessee through speed post in the address given by the assessee in the return of income, pursuant to which the Learned AO proceeded to frame the reassessment in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration by treating the cash deposit of Rs 40

K.P. COLD STORAGE,AGRA vs. ITO-2(1)(2), AGRA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S K.P. Coldstorage, Vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1)(2), B-23, Kamala Nagar, Agra Agra Pan: Aacck7095G (Assessee) (Revenue)

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 starts and is counted from the date of service of Notice u/s 148 and not from the notice issued under section 142(1). Therefore, the notice u/s 142(1) dated 04.11.2016 is not without jurisdiction” 9. Before the learned CIT(A) specific objection was raised vide ground No-2 stating that the assessment order

RUBY JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

40,000/- through Cameo Corporate Services Ltd for allotment made for Initial Public Offer (IPO) on 15.03.2013. b. Payments for the same were made through regular banking channels. c. The shares were duly Dematted and was credited to the Demat account maintained by the assessee. d. The assessee through her broker Seema Securities Pvt. Ltd sold 2800 shares at different

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

40%, reached a conclusion that almost 1/10th of purchases were bogus purchases. The assessee challenged the finding and submitted that the Ld. AO did not make any distinction between two units i.e., Shamsabad Unit, Agra and Kota Unit, Rajasthan of the assessee which adopted different extraction processes. In Shamsabad Unit, the assessee used traditional technology and produced Kacchi Ghani whereas

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

40%, reached a conclusion that almost 1/10th of purchases were bogus purchases. The assessee challenged the finding and submitted that the Ld. AO did not make any distinction between two units i.e., Shamsabad Unit, Agra and Kota Unit, Rajasthan of the assessee which adopted different extraction processes. In Shamsabad Unit, the assessee used traditional technology and produced Kacchi Ghani whereas

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

40%, reached a conclusion that almost 1/10th of purchases were bogus purchases. The assessee challenged the finding and submitted that the Ld. AO did not make any distinction between two units i.e., Shamsabad Unit, Agra and Kota Unit, Rajasthan of the assessee which adopted different extraction processes. In Shamsabad Unit, the assessee used traditional technology and produced Kacchi Ghani whereas

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

40%, reached a conclusion that almost 1/10th of purchases were bogus purchases. The assessee challenged the finding and submitted that the Ld. AO did not make any distinction between two units i.e., Shamsabad Unit, Agra and Kota Unit, Rajasthan of the assessee which adopted different extraction processes. In Shamsabad Unit, the assessee used traditional technology and produced Kacchi Ghani whereas

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

40%, reached a conclusion that almost 1/10th of purchases were bogus purchases. The assessee challenged the finding and submitted that the Ld. AO did not make any distinction between two units i.e., Shamsabad Unit, Agra and Kota Unit, Rajasthan of the assessee which adopted different extraction processes. In Shamsabad Unit, the assessee used traditional technology and produced Kacchi Ghani whereas