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 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

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)

45,390/- originally returned by the assessee. 3. Before the learnedCIT(A), assessee raised various grounds regarding validity of re-opening and also submitted that the additions on merits have wrongly been made. However, being unconvinced the learnedCIT(A) rejected the appeal both on legal grounds as well on merits and confirmed the assessment order as such. Being aggrieved, assessee

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

BHAGWAN SWAROOP,ALIGARH vs. THE I.T.O. WARD 4(1)(1), ALIGARH , ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 10.03.2023, making an addition of Rs.1,06,45,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee filed first appeal on 18.08.2023 against this assessment order dated 10.03.2023. As per assessee, the first appeal was filed within prescribed time limit

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 154 of the 'Act'. 3. Because learned 'CIT (Appeals)' failed to appreciate that the appellant was not seeking review of appellate order dated 28.06.2022, but rectification of said order in light of law declared subsequently by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Because, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has in the facts of the case has erred in not rectifying appellate order

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 154 of the 'Act'. 3. Because learned 'CIT (Appeals)' failed to appreciate that the appellant was not seeking review of appellate order dated 28.06.2022, but rectification of said order in light of law declared subsequently by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Because, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has in the facts of the case has erred in not rectifying appellate order

BIPIN BAU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 154 of the 'Act'. 3. Because learned 'CIT (Appeals)' failed to appreciate that the appellant was not seeking review of appellate order dated 28.06.2022, but rectification of said order in light of law declared subsequently by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Because, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has in the facts of the case has erred in not rectifying appellate order

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 154 of the 'Act'. 3. Because learned 'CIT (Appeals)' failed to appreciate that the appellant was not seeking review of appellate order dated 28.06.2022, but rectification of said order in light of law declared subsequently by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. Because, learned 'CIT (Appeals)' has in the facts of the case has erred in not rectifying appellate order

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

45,54,880/- 2. In this case, the election affidavit dated 30/03/2019 filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal with ECI was verified as per provisions of SOP issued by CBDT on 20/03/2019. During verification, it was found that for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee had a llability of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- in form of Unsecured Loans

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

45,54,880/- 2. In this case, the election affidavit dated 30/03/2019 filed by Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal with ECI was verified as per provisions of SOP issued by CBDT on 20/03/2019. During verification, it was found that for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee had a llability of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- in form of Unsecured Loans

SAROJ,MAINPURI vs. I.T.O WARD 2(5), MAINPURI

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee in the Memo of Appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra, reads as under : 1. Because on the facts of the case and being unaware of the notices of appeal hearing uploaded on income tax portal the compliances could

VARDAN CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

reassessment order passed on 21/12/2018. There after assessee did not receiving any notice of hearing only when portal was logged for preparing application under vivad se viswas scheme 2024 it was noticed that order was passed on 22/02/2023 as the assessee was not aware about the disposal of appeal, the appeal is delay of 21 months looking to the facts