M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

14 section 147 of the Income Tax Act is absent as there is no own reason to believe of the Assessing Officer. 3. That in the assessment framed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer has mentioned at page 2 that search and survey action was conducted by the Income Tax Department

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 147 is attracted. The reasons to believe ought to also paraphrase any investigation report which may form the basis of the reasons and any enquiry conducted by the AO on the same and if so, the conclusions thereof; (iii). where the reasons make a reference to another document, whether as a letter or report, such document and/or relevant portions

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act read with sec. 143(3) of the Act, notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory. In the absence of notice u/s 143(2), it is obvious that no further proceedings can be continued for assessment u/s 143 and without such a notice, the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction and this I.T.A No. 117/Agra/2017 4 defect cannot

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

2 facts that reassessment proceedings initiated and consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Act which are illegal and void for the reason - (a) that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without 3 demonstrating

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

2 facts that reassessment proceedings initiated and consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 of the Act which are illegal and void for the reason - (a) that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year without 3 demonstrating

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

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

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

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

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

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

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

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

147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there is no purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme

PARMANAND,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

iii). That the transactions as recorded in the documents supplied to the assessee along with Show Cause Notice fully matched with transactions of purchases made by the assessee from another concern M/s Trading Co., Gwalior and M/s Sudharaj Trading Co., Gwalior and are duly accounted for in the books of accounts. All the supporting documents i.e. Road permit (Form

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

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)

iii). Based on the above facts, the Assessing Officer observed that the said bank account was being used as a tool for providing accommodation entries to various persons. Most of the entries were found as credits, which have been shown by the beneficiaries as purchases made from M/s. Jai Baba Gurudev Traders.. One such credit entry of Rs.1

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: I.T.A No. 422/Agra/2017 6 ‘S. Narayanappa

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

III. I have examined the case record in your case for A.Υ. 2012-13 and on examination of the case record several issues have emerged, which are discussed hereunder: 3 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 1. It is seen from the record that the Assessee sold 2 properties (as co- owner along with her husband Dr. Atul

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

III. I have examined the case record in your case for A.Υ. 2012-13 and on examination of the case record several issues have emerged, which are discussed hereunder: 3 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 1. It is seen from the record that the Assessee sold 2 properties (as co- owner along with her husband Dr. Atul