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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest

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

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

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

u/s 143(3) on total income of Rs. 5,39,690/- vide order dated 01.12.2010. From perusal of assessment records it is found that the assessee has debited Rs. 27,47,003/- against material cost in the profit Loss account. The ledger account of 3 material expenses shows various payments incurred in cash on different dates in excess

SARMAN RAI,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3)(3), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

47,710/-. Based on the information available with the department, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.13,90,000/- in his bank account maintained with PNB, Baruasagar, Jhansi. The Assessing Officer, therefore, initiated reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 29.03.2019, which stood un-responded on behalf