MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT , FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC) (SLP dismissed in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC)) (b) ITAT Agra Bench order dated 28.03.2025 (ITA No. 258/Agr/2024) in Shri Anil Kumar Yadav vs. ITO 4.0 The perusal of the reassessment order dated 23.12.2019 reveals that the ld. Assessing Officer has acted against the appellant on the basis

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC) (SLP dismissed in CIT vs. S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 313 (SC)) (b) ITAT Agra Bench order dated 28.03.2025 (ITA No. 258/Agr/2024) in Shri Anil Kumar Yadav vs. ITO 4.0 The perusal of the reassessment order dated 23.12.2019 reveals that the ld. Assessing Officer has acted against the appellant on the basis

VIKAS CHANDRA HUF,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD-4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshvikas Chandra Huf, Vs. Cit(Appeals), D-117, Ramesh Vihar, Nfac, Delhi Ramghar Road, Aligarh Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakjv9476N Assessee By : Shri Pankaj Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

2 to 5 of the Paper Book. On perusal of the proforma seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act, we find that the ld PCIT had stated that he is satisfied that this is fit case for reopening. This sort of approval granted u/s 151 of the Act was held to be approval granted without application of mind and construed

AVNINDRA MISHRA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017 6 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa

ANITA YADAV,MATHURA vs. ITO -1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: I.T.A No. 422/Agra/2017 6 ‘S. Narayanappa

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

BIJENDRA KUMAR,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings deserve to be quashed.” 3. The additional ground as preliminary issue raised by the appellant assessee, challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act by the ld A.O. being passed on mechanical approval u/s. 151 of the Act, goes to the root of the matter. We deem it fit to address the same first

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

56,407/- The appellant craves leave to add, alter or vary the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 11.07.2012, declaring total income of Rs.8,16,230/-. Case of the assessee was reopened by the Revenue for framing reassessment by invoking provisions

SH. SANJEEV PARASHAR,ALIGARH vs. I.T.O., WARD-1, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri Sanjeev Parashar Vs..Ito, Ward -1, A-6, Mahavir Park, Extension, Aligarh. Aligarh. Panno.Ajopp3902F (Assessee) (Revenue)

56,381/- in valuation of property on estimated basis. 7. Because the Id. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant had started construction of building w.e.f. 6- 01-2009 to 31-10-2010 and hence cost of construction should be bifurcated in respective assessment years.” 3 2. The following additional grounds have also been taken: (i) Because

PAWAN AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

56 taxmann.com 390 (MP HC). The Special\nLeave Petition (SLP) filed by the revenue against this decision was dismissed by\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 64 taxmann.com 313. Further, I find\nthat the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of PCIT Vs. NC Cables Ltd\nreported in 391 ITR 11 (Del) had also held the same

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)

2(b) of Section 147 of the Act, we find that the same would be applicable only if no assessment has been made earlier for the year which is sought to be reopened. In the instant case, the assessment has already been framed originally u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019 order of which is enclosed in page

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)

2(b) of Section 147 of the Act, we find that the same would be applicable only if no assessment has been made earlier for the year which is sought to be reopened. In the instant case, the assessment has already been framed originally u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24.12.2019 order of which is enclosed in page

ANIL KUMAR YADAV LEGAL HEIR SMT. LONG SHREE ,MAINPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(2)(4), MAINPURI

2)(4)\n(L/H Smt. Long Shree)\nबनाम /\nMainpuri\nMain Bazar, Karhal\nVs.\nMainpuri 205001\nस्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAAPY-8480-E\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)\nअपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Appellant by: Shri Anurga Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. AR\nप्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent by: Shri Shailendra Shrivastava - Ld. Sr. DR\nसुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing\n20-02-2025\nघोषणाकीतारीख / Date of Pronouncement

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2, Kamla Nagar, Agra, sold the property on 02.12.2006 for Rs. 14,00,000/- whereas, its valuation for the purpose of stamp duty was at Rs. 17,40,000/- thus taking into the value according to section 50C of the Act, taking its purchase cost, the net capital gain does arise above the taxable limit prevailing in the year