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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

v. No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. In the above quoted approval granted

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

v. Bench No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. DCIT’, ITA vi. No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. In the above quoted approval granted

AVNINDRA MISHRA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

v. Bench No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. DCIT’, ITA vi. No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. In the above quoted approval granted

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

v. Bench No 219 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. DCIT’, ITA vi. No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. In the above quoted approval granted

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

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