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

24-39, relevant portion at APB 25, para 2 to page 27, para 10, as also reproduced in the impugned order at page 5 para 2 to page 7 para 10), contending, inter alia, that: “2. That on receipt of reason recorded objection regarding validly/issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was filed. The Assessing Officer

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

24-39, relevant portion at APB 25, para 2 to page 27, para 10, as also reproduced in the impugned order at page 5 para 2 to page 7 para 10), contending, inter alia, that: “2. That on receipt of reason recorded objection regarding validly/issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act was filed. The Assessing Officer

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act. So, Notice u/s 148 is being issued in this case.” 12. In the original assessment the AO has assessed income of the assessee in the following manner (refer para 4.1 of AO’s order). Rs. 68,96,44,450/- Total turnover Less: work done through Rs. 24,22,14,420/-profit

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

24 (Mum.) (URO), wherein, following the decision of Prashant N. Joshi' (supra), notice under section 148 of the Act was quashed, holding as under:- 9. A lot of emphasis has been placed by the authorities below on the fact that since the reassessment is being resorted to within four years of the end of the relevant assessment year

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

24,35,000/- Rs.2,30,88,000/- with HDFC Bank Total Assessed Income Rs.2,30,88,000/- A.Y. 2005-06:- Returned Income as estimated Rs.NIL Add:- 1. Unexplained deposit in account Rs. 23,15,000/- with Union Bank of India, Gwalior 2. Unexplained deposit in account Rs.1,72,35,000/- Rs.1,95,00,000/- with HDFC Bank Total Assessed Income

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the I.T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017 7 reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this is fit case

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 6 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 6 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this

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.

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.19,90,13,470/-. The said Rs.19,90,13,469/- represents the difference in opening stock, purchases, sales, closing stock and the net profit as shown by the assessee in its return

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.

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act read with Section 147 of the Act determining the income of the assessee by making an addition of Rs.19,90,13,470/-. The said Rs.19,90,13,469/- represents the difference in opening stock, purchases, sales, closing stock and the net profit as shown by the assessee in its return

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this is fit case for issue of notice

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act. It is further noted that the approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded, it demonstrates that Joint CIT has written “Yes, in view of reasons recorded by the AO, I am satisfied that this is fit case for issue of notice

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

section 263 of the Act. He further contended that there is no bar on the Assessing Officer for exploring other issues in reassessment proceedings other than for which the reassessment was resorted to. 12. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and carefully gone through the records and perused the case laws. 13. Undisputedly, the order found

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

section 263 of the Act. He further contended that there is no bar on the Assessing Officer for exploring other issues in reassessment proceedings other than for which the reassessment was resorted to. 12. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and carefully gone through the records and perused the case laws. 13. Undisputedly, the order found

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

147 Taxman, 12 (All). 7. Pooran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection, [1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) 8. Deep Chand Daga Vs. ITO [1970] 77 ITR, 661 (MP) and, 9. Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd. V. Assistant CIT, [2007] 294 ITR 620 [2008] 168 Taxman 251 (Mad.) 14. None of the judgments referred to above have any connection to the point

SOURABH JAIN,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Saurabh Jain, Guna. 1, Near Sanjeevani Vs. Hospital Garha Colony, Guna, Madhaya Pradesh-473001 Pan-Bgjpj7915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

24,83,15,217/- under Section 69A on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts which were duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by an audit report, making the invocation of Section 69A unwarranted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred not dealt to the ground

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

u/s 148 of the Act and also has not filed objection he is precluded from challenging the validity of reasons at this belated stage. We are afraid to approve this submission too. In the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has only provided step wise procedure and nowhere it has been held that

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

24. Reliance by learned Sr. D.R to M/s GinniFilaments vs. CIT in Writ Tax No. 1402 of 2014- Allahabad HC is misplaced as in this case assessee had not valued its Closing Stock as per provisions of Section 145A of the Act. Notice under section 148 was issued which was challenged in Writ Jurisdiction. The Hon’ble High Court while