SMT. SARIKA 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

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.

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.19,90,13,470/-. The said Rs.19,90,13,469/- represents the difference in opening stock, purchases, sales, closing stock and the net profit as shown by the assessee in its return

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.

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.19,90,13,470/-. The said Rs.19,90,13,469/- represents the difference in opening stock, purchases, sales, closing stock and the net profit as shown by the assessee in its return

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

147 of the Act on the ground that registration u/s. 12AA was granted effective from 01.04.2011, i.e., assessment year 2012-13, but the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act for the impugned assessment year, i.e., 2010-11. There was no compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as in the first appellate proceedings. Both

PAWAN KUMAR CHAUHAN,MAINPURI vs. ITO- WARD 2 (5) , AGRA, AGRA

deduction claimed u/s 80 C made by the Assessing\nOfficer ignoring schedule \"A\" of the audited balance sheet (proprietor\ncapital account) in which the amount of LIP and Tution Fees Paid is\nduly accounted for.\n4. Because considering the facts of the case all the additions deserves\nto be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A) should have deleted all the additions

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

reassessment was completed u/s 147\nread with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

reassessment was completed u/s 147\nread with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction

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

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

reassessment was completed u/s 147\nread with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

reassessment was completed u/s 147\nread with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house\nproperty of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account\nof unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the\nsum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was completed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was completed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was completed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction

GUMAN SINGH KUSHWAH,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 16.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. One of the ground raised before me is that the learned NFAC had mechanically confirmed the order of the ld AO without giving his independent findings

M/S TOMAR & BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-5, FIROZABAD

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 348/Agr/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08) M/S. Tomar & Brothers Acit, Circle 5, बनाम/ 843-A, Moti Jheel Colony, Firozabad. Vs. Etawah (Up). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaft-7229-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2007-08 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Ii, Agra [Cit(A)] Dated 31-03-2014 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2011. Both Sides Made Vehement Arguments. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed- Off As Under. The Ld. Ar Has Assailed The Validity Of Reassessment Proceedings. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized U/S. 143(3) On 18-11-2009. However, The Case Was Reopened Vide Notice U/S 07-01-2011 On The Allegation That The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source On Machinery Rental Payments.

147 of the Act on 29-12-2011. Both sides made vehement arguments. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed- off as under. The Ld. AR has assailed the validity of reassessment proceedings. 2. Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that assessee’s return of income was scrutinized u/s

PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA,TIKAMGARH vs. ITO , TIKAMGARH

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Pramod Kumar Gupta, Vs. Ito, House No. 393, Tikamgarh Bhelasee Baldev Gargh, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Auupg5954D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) dated 21.12.2018 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward- Takamgarh (hereinafter referred to as „ld. AO‟). 2. At the outset, I find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the Assessee before this Tribunal by 846 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

deducted from NAFED purchases making it 38.71%\nand accordingly, reverse calculations were made. The Ld. AO drew an\ninference that average yield could not be below 41% as against average\nyield of 36% as shown by the assessee in its audited books of accounts.\nSo far as AY 2017-18 was concerned, this was year of demonetization\nand it would

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

deducted from NAFED purchases making it 38.71%\nand accordingly, reverse calculations were made. The Ld. AO drew an\ninference that average yield could not be below 41% as against average\nyield of 36% as shown by the assessee in its audited books of accounts.\nSo far as AY 2017-18 was concerned, this was year of demonetization\nand it would