SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

5. Here again, we have to clarify that the Tribunal has wrongly assumed that reassessment was completed beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year and there is no failure on the part of the assessee to make full and true disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment as referred to in the first proviso

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 of the Act mandates that exclusively the satisfaction of the assessing authorities based on some direct and relevant material could lay the foundation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. According to the appellant, the AO has not applied his own mind and hence the assessment is not justified. 7 I have considered all the facts

SMT. VIDHYA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(4), AGRA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessment proceeding itself we see no need to deal with ground No. 3 raised by the assessee to the effect that "on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming and the Assessing Officer erred in holding that the provisions of section 11(5) read with section

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 relevant assessment year, and therefore, the reassessment proceedings are ex facie bad in law, being initiated without satisfying the conditions stipulated in first proviso to Section 147, and are thus liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action

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

5 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 relevant assessment year, and therefore, the reassessment proceedings are ex facie bad in law, being initiated without satisfying the conditions stipulated in first proviso to Section 147, and are thus liable to be quashed as void ab initio. The statutory conditions under the first proviso to Section 147 are that no action

VEERENDRA SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO,W 2(1)(5),ORAI, JALAUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kocharveerendra Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Vill. Dakor Mohana, Orai, Ward 2(1)(5), Orai, Distt. Jalaun (Up)-285001. V. Distt. Jalaun (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbjps 3108 J Appellant .. Respondent

section 147 of the Act, and proceedings u/s 147 were initiated against the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued questionnaire to the assessee. The AO has recorded in the assessment order that the assessee filed his return of income on 16.7.2018 in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act as is emerging from the reassessment order passed by the Assessing

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S WELCOME COIR INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

21,920/- with Union Bank of India, Gwalior 2. Unexplained deposit in account Rs.13.29,080/- Rs.90,51,000/- I.T.A No. 266 to 269/Agra/2013 5 with HDFC Bank Total Assessed Income Rs.90,51,000/- A.Y. 2004-05:- Returned Income as estimated Rs.NIL Add:- 1. Unexplained deposit in account Rs. 2,06,53,000/- with Union Bank of India, Gwalior 2. Unexplained

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

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

5 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench 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

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

5 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 ‘Sushrut Institute of Plastic Surgery vs. Dy. CIT’, Misc. Bench 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

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the approval is no approval in the eye of the law having been granted without application of mind, the following decision have been relied on: ‘Sunil Agrawal vs. ITO’, in ITA No. 988/Del/2018. 1. ‘Virat Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in CO No. 2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari

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

5 and Point 8 of the Notice u/s 263 dated 17.03.2022 that the Reason recorded u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e. Issues regarding investments in Mutual Funds had not been properly inquired into and verified by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding, and these are to be examined for which directions have

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

5 and Point 8 of the Notice u/s 263 dated 17.03.2022 that the Reason recorded u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 i.e. Issues regarding investments in Mutual Funds had not been properly inquired into and verified by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceeding, and these are to be examined for which directions have

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the approval is no approval in the eye of the law having been granted without application of mind, the following decision have been relied on: ‘Sunil Agrawal vs. ITO’, in ITA No. 988/Del/2018. 1. ‘Virat Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in CO No. 2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the approval is no approval in the eye of the law having been granted without application of mind, the following decision have been relied on: ‘Sunil Agrawal vs. ITO’, in ITA No. 988/Del/2018. 1. ‘Virat Credit & Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in CO No. 2. 57/Del/2012 in ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari

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.

5 of the reassessment order (page 30 of the paper book) submits that the Assessing Officer has given finding that in the course of assessment proceedings vide order sheet entry dated 20.12.2017, the Assessee was required to furnish explanation and justification regarding the difference in stock as per stock summary and as per ITR and Audit Report and the Assessee

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.

5 of the reassessment order (page 30 of the paper book) submits that the Assessing Officer has given finding that in the course of assessment proceedings vide order sheet entry dated 20.12.2017, the Assessee was required to furnish explanation and justification regarding the difference in stock as per stock summary and as per ITR and Audit Report and the Assessee

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

21,313/-has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act 1961 in the case of Shri Dinesh Chand Gupta, B-69 Trans Yamuna Colony, Agra in the assessment year 2008-09 and the escapement occurred due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to payments