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

4, Kolkata vide report dated 22.03.2018, reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under section 148 on 13.09.2018 after seeking prior approval of the competent authority, i.e., PCIT-2, Agra under section 151 of the Act. Based on such information available as per the reasons recorded and subsequent information received from ADIT (Inv.) Unit

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

4, Kolkata vide report dated 22.03.2018, reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under section 148 on 13.09.2018 after seeking prior approval of the competent authority, i.e., PCIT-2, Agra under section 151 of the Act. Based on such information available as per the reasons recorded and subsequent information received from ADIT (Inv.) Unit

CHANDRA PRAKASH GOPLANI,BENGALURU vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

4 | P a g e stipulated for aforesaid delay is shifting of the assessee from Agra to Bangalore. I have observed that in Form No. 35 , the assessee has mentioned Bangalore Address. The assessee has stated that he did not received any notices from CIT(A) nor the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) was received. The assessee

RATNESH KUMAR JAIN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act, the appellate order is liable to be set aside. 2 That while passing of the order, the learned CIT (Appeals) has not disposed of the grounds are being taken by the appellant in the appeal. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law, liable to be set aside. 3 That

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), which appeal before learned CIT(A), National Faceless 2 Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi had arisen from the reassessment order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in memo of appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra

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)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer.. 2(i). Brief facts state that the assessee is in the business of building construction. It filed its return of income

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) arising out of the order passed u/s 144 of the Act dated 29.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2019-20. Singh Carriers vs. ITO 2. From the perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act as the assessee failed

SONU JAIN THROUGH LEGAL HEIR AND FATHER OF LATE SONU JAIN SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN ,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) arising out of the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 09.03.2024. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the AO has information that assessee has made large cash deposit into the bank accounts amounting to ₹64,90,000 and no return of income

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld CIT has dismissed assessee’s appeal against the addition of Rs. 1,19,17,354/- made on account of unaccounted purchases vide, assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 2. The brief facts state that

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

250/-. The case of the assessee was sought to be reopened by the ld AO based on the information declared by the ITA Nos. 54 & 76/AGR/2025 Manoj Kumar Agarwal assessee in his affidavit filed before the Election Commission of India. The reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment are as under:- “1. Assessee is an Individual. The return of Income

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

250/-. The case of the assessee was sought to be reopened by the ld AO based on the information declared by the ITA Nos. 54 & 76/AGR/2025 Manoj Kumar Agarwal assessee in his affidavit filed before the Election Commission of India. The reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment are as under:- “1. Assessee is an Individual. The return of Income

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)

u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short). Saurabh Jain vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in setting aside assessment without dealt to filed ground of appeal hence whole order

SH ABHISHEK GUPTA ,AGRA vs. ITO W2(2)(1),, FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarshri Abhishek Gupta The Income Tax Officer 405, Anupam Omerean Ward 2(2)(1), Firozabad, Heights, Mughal Road, V. U.P. Kamla Nagar, Agra-282005 Uttar Pradesh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aefpg0755D Appellant .. Respondent

147 of the Act, after obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority.Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued by the AO to the assessee on 31.03.2019 . Copy of reasons recorded by the AO were also provided to the assessee. Statutory notices u/s 142(1) , 143(2) and 144 were issued by the AO from time to time during

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the A.Y. 2015-16, wherein ld CIT has dismissed assessee’s first appeal against the addition of Rs. 53,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of the Act as an unexplained cash credit vide assessment order dated 30.03.2022. 2. At the very outset, we notice that despite

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/s. 142(1) as well as show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act, show causing to the assessee that why deduction u/s. 11 may not be denied to the assessee as registration u/s. 12AA was granted vide order dated 14.09.2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011, i.e., for the assessment

BIKESH KUMAR,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(1) , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbikesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagla Bhoop Nasirpur, Ward-2(2)(1), Shikhabad Firozabad, Firozabad Firozabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bglpk0327A Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

147), without giving of decision on the grounds specifically taken, order passed by. NFAC is bad in law, liable to be set aside. 4. That no addition is liable to be made, addition made, sustained by NFAC is highly unjustified, sustained without taking into 4 consideration, the replies, explanation filed before them, no addition is liable to be made, addition

ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

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

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [subsection (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner]." The above provisions u/s

D.S. INDIA JEWELMART P LTD,MATHURA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and those of Revenue are

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

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [subsection (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner]." The above provisions u/s