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

e-filed. As the balance sheet was before your goodself at the time of reasons recorded and the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 3. That the reason recorded by your goodself for having a belief that income has escaped assessment. The assessee has invested a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- during the assessment year 2010-11, consideration

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

e-filed. As the balance sheet was before your goodself at the time of reasons recorded and the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 3. That the reason recorded by your goodself for having a belief that income has escaped assessment. The assessee has invested a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- during the assessment year 2010-11, consideration

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

22,700/-. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against

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

22,700/-. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 31.03.2016, assessing total income of assessee at Rs.2,59,89,010/- after rejecting assessee’s books of account u/s. 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and making additions on account of low net profit and disallowance of depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against

SARVESH KUMAR,FARRUKHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(2) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Kumar, Vs. Ito, Okharu Khanpur, Ward-4(2)(2), Farrukhabad, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad Ho 209601 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dsqpk3348G Assessee By : Shri Swaran Singh, Ca Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/11/2025

2(a) of Section 147 of the Act kicks in. Accordingly, in order to frame any assessment, the ld AO should have issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on the assessee in the manner known to law, then proceed to frame the reassessment u/s 143(3)/ 144 r.w.s. Section 147 of the Act. I find this issue was subject

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

22 Reasons for according Remarks: Approved u/s approval/rejection by the specified 148(d) as a fit case. authority to order 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

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

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

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

RADHIKA GARG,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 433/AGR/2024 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the AddL/ JCIT(A)-5, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. ADDL/ JCIT(A)’, in short] dated 24.06.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated

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)

E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [ld. CIT(A) in short] in Appeal No. NFAC/2018-19/10384806 dated 17.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) arising out of the order passed

CHAND KHAN,SADA SHIV NAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1(2) , CITY CENTER

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment. 1. That as regards notice issued U/S 142(1) as stated by the AO on 18/11/2019 which was also neither issued nor served to the appellant. 2. That the assessment order passed by the AO in which date of order is not mentioned in S.N. 12 on first page which clearly showed that whole proceeding are illegal and void

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

E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 450/AGR/2025 for AY 2020-21, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] dated 04.08.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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)

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

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)

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

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)

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

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.

22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. AACFU5061D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by Shri Surende Pal, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 14.10.2022 02.11.2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. These two appeals are filed

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.

22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. AACFU5061D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by Shri Surende Pal, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 14.10.2022 02.11.2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M. These two appeals are filed

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

22, 2022-23 & 2023-24. 2. Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. First, we take up ITA No.251/Agr/2025 for AY 2018-19 filed by the assessee against the order of PCIT u/s 263 and the brief facts of the case