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)

44,270/-. The ld AO observed that assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 20,14,790/- in the return of income. The assessee owns 50.47 bighas of agricultural land. The assessee informed before the ld AO that he had also cultivated 44.19 bighas of agricultural land owned by his brother. The ld AO however observed that since the assessee

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)

44,270/-. The ld AO observed that assessee has shown agricultural income of Rs. 20,14,790/- in the return of income. The assessee owns 50.47 bighas of agricultural land. The assessee informed before the ld AO that he had also cultivated 44.19 bighas of agricultural land owned by his brother. The ld AO however observed that since the assessee

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.

147 of the Act in not making addition U/s 68 resulted in erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue except stating that the Assessing Officer should have been made addition U/s 68 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 instead of treating the net profit as assessed income of the Assessee on account of alleged difference in closing stock

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.

147 of the Act in not making addition U/s 68 resulted in erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue except stating that the Assessing Officer should have been made addition U/s 68 I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 instead of treating the net profit as assessed income of the Assessee on account of alleged difference in closing stock

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)

u/s 148 without complying the provision of Section 148 (2)” The Hon’ble High Court held that: “Further, it has been held that the plea with regard to the jurisdiction of the Officer goes into the root of the matter, therefore, even if not raised at the first instance before the Assessing Authority, it can be raised before the Appellate

PREMWATI SUMAN,AGRA vs. ITO-1(3), AGRA

In the result both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Premwati Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnvps9819N (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri. Ranjeet Suman, Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(3), 1/1, Hig Flats, Sanjay Place, Agra. Agra. Pan: Bnlps9622P (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 44-AB of the Act and statement showing computation of income were filed by the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, notices for reassessment for these two years were issued by the learned Assessing Officer on the ground that the income has escaped assessment to tax.” Therefore, the case is distinguishable on facts. 31. In view of the reasons set out above

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

147 and the same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though, it is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it is mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

147 and the same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though, it is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it is mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

147 and the same enquiry have been referred in the case of the Md. Irfan. Though, it is very established that, this is not a case of lack of enquiry, therefore it is mere a change of opinion of the Ld. PCIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 read with Explanation 2 clause (a) and since adequate

ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Anil Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Dy. Cit, 44, R. S. Residency, Circle-2(1)(1), Dayal Bagh, Agra, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampa3335J Assessee By : Shri Rajni Kant Verma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

44, R. S. Residency, Circle-2(1)(1), Dayal Bagh, Agra, UP Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPA3335J Assessee by : Shri Rajni Kant Verma, Adv Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 19/11/2025 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 101/AGR/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order

SHREE RAMRAJA HOMES PVT.LTD,JHANSI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Shree Ramraja Homes Circle-2(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Sanjay Place, Agra. 7, Om Building, New Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh- 284002 Pan-Aapcs3955G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Utsav Sehgal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 28.03.2024, In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10165707 For Assessment Year 2017- 18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, Inshort) Dated 21.03.2022. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate & Filed Its Return Shree Ramraja Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Of Income On 28.09.2017 Declaring Total Income At Rs.46,53,593/-. The Assessing Officer Has Information In Its Possession That Assessee Has Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During The Demonetization Period Of Rs.34,00,000/-, Therefore, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Way Of Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 31.03.2021 After Recording The Reasons & Taking Necessary Approvals From The Competent Authority. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income In Response To Notice U/S 148 Nor Made Any Response To The Notices Issued By The Ao On Various Occasions Including Show Cause Notice Dated 08.03.2022. Therefore, The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act By Making Addition Of Rs.34,00,000/- By Treating The Same As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

44,91,320 is liable to be quashed. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by the upholding the impugned reassessment order passed by the Ld. AO since it was initiated and passed without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 147 to section 148A

SANSKAR NAGAR,JHANSI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

Appeals stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.351/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.352/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.353/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.354/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.349/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19; Smc Bench) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.346/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.347/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17; Smc Bench) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.348/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18; Smc Bench) & 9. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.350/Agr/2024

u/s 153D/2020-21/17 dated 06-04-2021. The Ld. AR drew attention to the remand report as extracted in the impugned order on Page Nos.43 and 44, to state that common approval has been given through above communication in all 13 cases for different assessees. The Ld. AR thus submitted that the approval has been given in a mechanical manner which

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

44(A) should be considered to\naccept the purchases as made by the assessee from UP dealers. These\nrecords had details of each and every vehicle which was transported in\nthe name of the assessee and these record contained date of entry,\nname of supplier, item of supply, quantity, gate pass no., vehicle no. etc.\nwhich would show that actual

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

44(A) should be considered to\naccept the purchases as made by the assessee from UP dealers. These\nrecords had details of each and every vehicle which was transported in\nthe name of the assessee and these record contained date of entry,\nname of supplier, item of supply, quantity, gate pass no., vehicle no. etc.\nwhich would show that actual