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

u/s. 68 of the Act. 3 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 6. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in this appeal, raising following grounds of appeal : “1. Because under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC under section 250 of the Income

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

u/s. 68 of the Act. 3 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 6. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in this appeal, raising following grounds of appeal : “1. Because under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC under section 250 of the Income

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 as well raising challenge to the additions made on merits of the issue before ld. CIT(A), wherein as many as 11 grounds of appeal were raised before ld. CIT(A). I have also observed that the CIT(Appeals) has not made any enquiry during the 10 | P a g e course of appellate proceedings

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

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

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

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

147 of the Act on the ground that registration u/s. 12AA was granted effective from 01.04.2011, i.e., assessment year 2012-13, but the assessee has claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act for the impugned assessment year, i.e., 2010-11. There was no compliance by the assessee during the assessment proceedings as well as in the first appellate proceedings. Both

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

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

147 read with section 148 of the Act, and notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2019 was issued by the AO to the assessee seeking to reopen the concluded assessment. There was no response from the assessee to the notice u/s. 148. Further, statutory notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued to the assessee in the reassessment proceedings

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

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

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

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

u/s 250 is bad in law, liable to be set aside.” 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of selling potatoes to persons outside Agra for which the buyers were sending the sales consideration by depositing the money in the bank account of the assessee

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)

6. We find that the revenue is inclined to accept the agricultural income only in respect of agricultural income owned by the assessee. The assessee carrying on agricultural activities on the land owned by the brother had to be proved by the assessee with documentary evidences that the brother had not shown agricultural income in his returns. This

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)

6. We find that the revenue is inclined to accept the agricultural income only in respect of agricultural income owned by the assessee. The assessee carrying on agricultural activities on the land owned by the brother had to be proved by the assessee with documentary evidences that the brother had not shown agricultural income in his returns. This

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. VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LALITPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 and issued notice u/s 148. Explanations/replies offered by assessee with respect to above information stood accepted by the Assessing Officer. However, it was further gathered from the said information that the assessee had shown bogus sales of Rs.1,18,52,322/- to M/s. Mahaveer Prasad Suresh Kumar, New Delhi. In response to statutory notices, the assessee

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