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 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-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 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, 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

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

section 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire order of 14 pages of the Ld. PCIT contains the submissions/objections of the assessee running into 11 pages and the conclusion of the Ld. PCIT is in one small para on last page. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. PCIT in her entire order

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

section 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the entire order of 14 pages of the Ld. PCIT contains the submissions/objections of the assessee running into 11 pages and the conclusion of the Ld. PCIT is in one small para on last page. The Ld. Counsel submits that the Ld. PCIT in her entire order

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

67 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 370 ITR 732 (Punjab &Haryana)[21-07-2014] Section 69C, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Statements made before other authorities, relevance of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee- company was engaged in business of manufacturing of non- alloys steel ingots, trading in scrap, etc. - Subsequent to assessment, Commissioner invoked jurisdiction

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

67 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 370 ITR 732 (Punjab &Haryana)[21-07-2014] Section 69C, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Statements made before other authorities, relevance of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee- company was engaged in business of manufacturing of non- alloys steel ingots, trading in scrap, etc. - Subsequent to assessment, Commissioner invoked jurisdiction

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

67 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 370 ITR 732 (Punjab &Haryana)[21-07-2014] Section 69C, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Statements made before other authorities, relevance of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee- company was engaged in business of manufacturing of non- alloys steel ingots, trading in scrap, etc. - Subsequent to assessment, Commissioner invoked jurisdiction

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment proceedings, the Assessee explained that the jewellery belonged to the company and had been sent for repolishing / job work to M/s Vijay Enterprises, Rajkot. The transaction was duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by documentary evidences. However, the Learned AO rejected the explanation mainly on the ground that Form - 403 was generated after interception and concluded

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

reassessment proceedings, the Assessee explained that the jewellery belonged to the company and had been sent for repolishing / job work to M/s Vijay Enterprises, Rajkot. The transaction was duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by documentary evidences. However, the Learned AO rejected the explanation mainly on the ground that Form - 403 was generated after interception and concluded

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

67 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 370 ITR 732\n(Punjab & Haryana)[21-07-2014]\nSection 69C, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n- Unexplained expenditure (Statements made before other\nauthorities, relevance of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of manufacturing of non-\nalloys steel ingots, trading in scrap, etc. Subsequent to\nassessment, Commissioner

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

67 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2015] 370 ITR 732\n(Punjab & Haryana)[21-07-2014]\nSection 69C, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n- Unexplained expenditure (Statements made before other\nauthorities, relevance of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee-\ncompany was engaged in business of manufacturing of non-\nalloys steel ingots, trading in scrap, etc. Subsequent to\nassessment, Commissioner

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings. Thus the Pr. CIT has erred in imitating proceedings U/S 263. 2 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 5. That the Asstt. Order dated 31-10-2019 is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.” 5. The order of the ld. PCIT in the case of Sarika Srivastava reveals that the assessee is a Doctor