ANURAG MITTAL ,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

51,200/- alleging the payment to be bogus revenue expenditure without any evidence or basis in support of his assumption. BECAUSE, while doing so the Ld ‘CIT(A)’ omitted to consider 2.1 that the Commission was duly paid by account payee cheques, subjected to Tax Deduction at Source, Parties are identifiable, and payment were duly made in respect of services

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 period shall be passed by an Assessing Officer shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner 7[or Deputy Commissioner] or an rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each Assistant Director 7[or Deputy Director], as the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of 51[sub-section

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 period shall be passed by an Assessing Officer shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner 7[or Deputy Commissioner] or an rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each Assistant Director 7[or Deputy Director], as the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of 51[sub-section

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 period shall be passed by an Assessing Officer shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner 7[or Deputy Commissioner] or an rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each Assistant Director 7[or Deputy Director], as the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of 51[sub-section

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

reassessment period shall be passed by an Assessing Officer shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner 7[or Deputy Commissioner] or an rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each Assistant Director 7[or Deputy Director], as the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of 51[sub-section

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 period shall be passed by an Assessing Officer shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner 7[or Deputy Commissioner] or an rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each Assistant Director 7[or Deputy Director], as the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of 51[sub-section

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

reassessment period shall be passed by an Assessing Officer shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner 7[or Deputy Commissioner] or an rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each Assistant Director 7[or Deputy Director], as the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of 51[sub-section

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

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

51,60,273/-’. Page 4 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/12/2016, the legal heirs of the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) , the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/11/2017 upheld the validity of the assessment order and directed the A.O. to allow the cost of acquisition of the property

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)

reassessment. In support, the Ld.AR relied on the following authoritative decisions: 1. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-6 Vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd. (2017) 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi High Court) 2. Signature Hotels (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer (2011) 338 ITR 51 (High Court of Delhi) 15 3. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4 Vs. G & G Pharma India

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

51,000/- A.Y. 2004-05:- Returned Income as estimated Rs.NIL Add:- 1. Unexplained deposit in account Rs. 2,06,53,000/- with Union Bank of India, Gwalior 2. Unexplained deposit in account Rs. 24,35,000/- Rs.2,30,88,000/- with HDFC Bank Total Assessed Income Rs.2,30,88,000/- A.Y. 2005-06:- Returned Income as estimated Rs.NIL

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

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, AGRA vs. SH. VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL, AGRA

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment proceedings before the AO, the assessee took the following objections (APB 51-53) dated 04.03.2015 before the AO: “Sir, In the captioned case assessment proceedings are in progress before your good-self. On the last date of hearing assessee was required to show cause as to why Long Term Capital Gain (‘LTCG’) be not computed at amount

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

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

51,582/-. The AO, however, was of the opinion that the said receipts of the assessee were from a business similar to those of the STPI Unit of the assessee, the business disclosed by the assessee, on which, net profit had been declared at the rate of 90.93%. As such, applying a net profit rate of 90% of the gross

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jainassessment Year: 2002-03

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961." 4. It has been contended on behalf of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings by observing (page-8 of the order under appeal) that "the said proceedings have been initiated undisputedly on the receipt of information from the Investigation Wing, Agra and this