NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

9. We note that on this legal issue there are divergent views expressed by different Hon’ble High Courts. However, it is noted that on this issue the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has expressed its view in favour of the assessee, and has concurred with

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

9. We note that on this legal issue there are divergent views expressed by different Hon‟ble High Courts. However, it is noted that on this issue the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has expressed its view in favour of the assessee, and has concurred with

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

9. We note that on this legal issue there are divergent views expressed by different Hon‟ble High Courts. However, it is noted that on this issue the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has expressed its view in favour of the assessee, and has concurred with

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

9. We note that on this legal issue there are divergent views expressed by different Hon‟ble High Courts. However, it is noted that on this issue the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court i.e. Madras High Court (Division Bench) in Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. (supra) has expressed its view in favour of the assessee, and has concurred with

SMT. VIDHYA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(4), AGRA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

9 I.T.A No. 216 /Agra/2012 & Others referring the case to a Special Bench by holding that the source of information being common, the case was covered. Our attention was drawn to copy this order which was placed at Pages 138 to 145 of the consolidated Paper Book filed by the assessees. 3.9 Reliance was also placed

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

1(Gujrat) 6 iii. SmtShreelekhaDamani vs DCIT 173 TTJ 332 iv. Pcit vs SmtShreelekhaDamani 307 CTR(Bom) 218 v. AAA PAPER MARKETING VS ACIT 2017(4) TMI 1371 vi. Smt Indra Bansal vs ACIT 192 TTJ (JD) 968 vii. Geeta Rani Panda vs ACIT 194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering

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

1(Gujrat) 6 iii. SmtShreelekhaDamani vs DCIT 173 TTJ 332 iv. Pcit vs SmtShreelekhaDamani 307 CTR(Bom) 218 v. AAA PAPER MARKETING VS ACIT 2017(4) TMI 1371 vi. Smt Indra Bansal vs ACIT 192 TTJ (JD) 968 vii. Geeta Rani Panda vs ACIT 194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering

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

1(Gujrat) 6 iii. SmtShreelekhaDamani vs DCIT 173 TTJ 332 iv. Pcit vs SmtShreelekhaDamani 307 CTR(Bom) 218 v. AAA PAPER MARKETING VS ACIT 2017(4) TMI 1371 vi. Smt Indra Bansal vs ACIT 192 TTJ (JD) 968 vii. Geeta Rani Panda vs ACIT 194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering

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

1(Gujrat) 6 iii. SmtShreelekhaDamani vs DCIT 173 TTJ 332 iv. Pcit vs SmtShreelekhaDamani 307 CTR(Bom) 218 v. AAA PAPER MARKETING VS ACIT 2017(4) TMI 1371 vi. Smt Indra Bansal vs ACIT 192 TTJ (JD) 968 vii. Geeta Rani Panda vs ACIT 194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering

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

1(Gujrat) 6 iii. SmtShreelekhaDamani vs DCIT 173 TTJ 332 iv. Pcit vs SmtShreelekhaDamani 307 CTR(Bom) 218 v. AAA PAPER MARKETING VS ACIT 2017(4) TMI 1371 vi. Smt Indra Bansal vs ACIT 192 TTJ (JD) 968 vii. Geeta Rani Panda vs ACIT 194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering

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

1(Gujrat) 6 iii. SmtShreelekhaDamani vs DCIT 173 TTJ 332 iv. Pcit vs SmtShreelekhaDamani 307 CTR(Bom) 218 v. AAA PAPER MARKETING VS ACIT 2017(4) TMI 1371 vi. Smt Indra Bansal vs ACIT 192 TTJ (JD) 968 vii. Geeta Rani Panda vs ACIT 194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering

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 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

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

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

9 only mentions the amount of Rs. 15.00 lac received by the share applicant M/s Silver Heritage Nivas (P) Ltd. from M/s Akashganga Agencies (P) Ltd in Financial Year 2011-12 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13 and not to the impugned year. Further, the statement of Shri Anuj Bekrediwala recorded under section

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

9 only mentions the amount of Rs. 15.00 lac received by the share applicant M/s Silver Heritage Nivas (P) Ltd. from M/s Akashganga Agencies (P) Ltd in Financial Year 2011-12 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13 and not to the impugned year. Further, the statement of Shri Anuj Bekrediwala recorded under 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

9 separate earmarked area of the premises taken on lease from private parties for five years, but the unit of the assessee did not fulfill this condition; that the assessee had failed to explain receipt of advance payments from her client, M/s Google Inc., USA, from June, 2008 to October, 2008, when her STPI Unit got approved only

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

9. That the C.I.T. (Appeal) has erred on facts and in law to sustain the addition of Rs. 18,76,100/- made by the A.O. u/s 68. 10. That the C.I.T. (Appeal) and A.O. have erred on facts and in law to not allow credit of accretion of saving from agriculture income and other income