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

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

u/s 148A(d) as a fit 148A(d) AND/OR issuance of case. notice under section 148 of the Name: RAJAT Income-tax Act, 1961? BANSAL Designation: PCCIT, DELHI Date: 20/03/2023 15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

u/s 148A(d) AND/OR Name: RAJAT BANSAL issuance of notice under section 148 of Designation: PCCIT, the Income-tax Act, 1961? DELHI Date: 20/03/2023 15. It is evident that the approval order is bereft of any reasons. It does not even refer to any material that may have weighed in the grant of approval. The mere appending of the word

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

194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering (P) Ltd 198 ITR 297( para37) 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering (P) Ltd 198 ITR 297( para37) 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering (P) Ltd 198 ITR 297( para37) 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering (P) Ltd 198 ITR 297( para37) 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering (P) Ltd 198 ITR 297( para37) 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

194 TTJ (CTK) 915 viii. AkilGulamali vs ITO 20 Taxman.com 380 ( para12) ix. Sun engineering (P) Ltd 198 ITR 297( para37) 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR had submitted that the legal grounds raised by the assessee is not born out on record and the ld.DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

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