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)

292 8,84,498 (2014790 X 56.47 / 100.66) 7. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms for AY 2015-16. ITA No. 70/AGR/2025 - AY 2017-18 8. The assessee has raised a preliminary legal ground challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. 9. We have heard the rival

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

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