CHANDRA PRAKASH GOPLANI,BENGALURU vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

income of the assessee being unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee maintained with ICICI Bank, Sanjay Place, Agra, by best judgment re-assessment order passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144. Thus, the assessee did not participated in the re- assessment proceedings.The ld. CIT(Appeals) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee

SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

reassessment order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s appeal and confirmed the impugned addition. 4 | P a g e 4. Present second appeal has been filed on the following grounds : “1. BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts and in the overall

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.

147 of the Act in not making addition U/s 68 resulted in erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue except stating that the Assessing Officer should have been made addition U/s 68 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 instead of treating the net profit as assessed income of the Assessee on account of alleged difference in closing stock

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.

147 of the Act in not making addition U/s 68 resulted in erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue except stating that the Assessing Officer should have been made addition U/s 68 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 instead of treating the net profit as assessed income of the Assessee on account of alleged difference in closing stock

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

reassessment proceedings are ex facie bad in law, being initiated without satisfying the conditions stipulated in first proviso to Section 147, and are thus liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action for reopening can be taken beyond four years unless there is a failure

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

reassessment proceedings are ex facie bad in law, being initiated without satisfying the conditions stipulated in first proviso to Section 147, and are thus liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action for reopening can be taken beyond four years unless there is a failure

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

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

business transaction and thus amenable of being charged as ‘capital gains’. 7. Because, without prejudice to the above, learned ‘CTT (Appeals)’ erred in not quantifying, the amount of income chargeable as ‘capital gains’ and remitting the matter to the file of ‘AO’ for verification of genuineness of purchase deed ignoring the fact that the purchase deed had been submitted

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

reassessment, after recording Md. Irfan's statement. However, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings u/s 263, believing the AO had not conducted proper inquiries. The PCIT set aside the assessment order, directing fresh inquiries.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 by merely substituting his own opinion for that

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)

business of sale and purchase of Escorts Tractors, motorcycle and lubricants, it would not be possible for him to cultivate his own agricultural land to the fullest extent and hence he could not have cultivated his brother‟s agricultural land. The assessee furnished the details of land holding, crop grown and sale of agricultural produce together with documentary evidences

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)

business of sale and purchase of Escorts Tractors, motorcycle and lubricants, it would not be possible for him to cultivate his own agricultural land to the fullest extent and hence he could not have cultivated his brother‟s agricultural land. The assessee furnished the details of land holding, crop grown and sale of agricultural produce together with documentary evidences

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)

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 under section 263 on basis of statement made by director of assessee-company before Central excise authorities in context

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)

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 under section 263 on basis of statement made by director of assessee-company before Central excise authorities in context

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)

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 under section 263 on basis of statement made by director of assessee-company before Central excise authorities in context

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

business of\nmanufacturing, processing and export of meat and meat products. Search and\nseizure action u/s 132(1) was carried out on 05.11.2022 at the residential and\nbusiness premises of HMA Agro Industries Ltd. and various documents,\nbooks of accounts and other records were seized.\n14. The notice u/s 148 was issued and the assessee filed return in response

SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed the same vide impugned order. 4. The assessee has filed this appeal before the tribunal on the following grounds : “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Authorities below have erred both on facts

SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA,MAINPURI vs. ITO WARD-2(5), MAINPURI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.216/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Subhash Chandra Gupta Ito-2(5) बनाम/ Kharagjeet Nagar, Mainpuri Mainpuri Vs. Up 205001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adjpc-7010-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Kulshreshtha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 27-12-2014. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.11 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 2. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee deposits cash of Rs.11 Lacs in its bank account

SINGH CARRIERS,JHANSI vs. WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Singh Carriers, Ward-2(3)(1), 2716, Swamipuram Vs. Jhansi. Colony, Gwalior Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh-284003. Pan-Aacfs9607B (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s 144 to the file of the AO by Finance Act, 2024, w.e.f. 01.10.2024 however, when the assessee raised the jurisdictional issue, it is the duty of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the legal issues first then to proceed to decide the grounds taken on the merits of the additions even in case of ex-parte order. Since

ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1) AGRA, SANJAY PLACE vs. MAMTA AGARWAL, BHAGWATI INTERNATIONAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

business of paper trading. The return of income for AY 2014-15 was filed by the assessee on 26.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 29,70,464/-. The Id AO on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing pertaining to one Prakash Gupta and his proprietorship concern namely Shri Trading Company, had initiated the reassessment proceedings in the case