SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment proceedings. Thus the Pr. CIT has erred in imitating proceedings U/S 263. 2 | P a g e ITA No.56 & 57/Agr/2022 5. That the Asstt. Order dated 31-10-2019 is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.” 5. The order of the ld. PCIT in the case of Sarika Srivastava reveals that the assessee is a Doctor

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

2. At the very outset, we notice that despite, appellant assessee having raised several grounds of appeal before the tribunal, an additional legal ground has also been raised through an application dated 14.01.2026, which reads as under: “That the assessment competed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the IT Act in consequence to the issue of notice u/s

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

48 (Mad). Held: The IT Act, does not any other contemplate issuance of a show cause Notice prier to finalization of scrutiny assessment as a matter of procedure and good office. 17. That notice issued U/S 148 is illegal and time barred in view of the following judgment 2016 248 CTR Page 210 (SC) Held: No assessment order passed

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)

48,41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete scrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two employees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order

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)

48,41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete scrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two employees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order

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)

48,41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete scrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two employees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order

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

48,41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete scrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two employees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order

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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

48,41,83,500/- for the year under consideration and the first complete scrutiny assessment was framed, wherein addition to the tune of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- was made on assessee relating to excess salary paid to two employees u/s 40A(2)(b) vide order dated 09.04.2021 u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. Copy of the order

SHYAMA SHYAM INFRADEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshshyama Shyam Vs. Ito, Infradevelopers Pvt Ltd, Ward-2(1)(2), Khasra No. 961, Bhahistabad, Agra Sikandra, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aatcs9899R Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

48,150/-. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished the following documents on the following dates before the ld AO: – Sl No. Date of Details of submission submission 1 17-01-2023 Acknowledgement, Reply to notice, ITR, Computation of Total Income, sale deeds, Audit Report, P&L account, Balance sheet. 2. 22-04-2023 Acknowledgement, Reply

ITO WARD-1(1)(2), AGRA vs. MAMTA SINGH, AGRA

Bench: : Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2007-08 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Smt. Mamta Singh, Ward-1(1)(2), Agra 6, Amar Lok Colony, Opposite Jalma Hospital, Agra. (Appellant) Pan :Aobps 7284 K (Respondent)

48 was filed nor books of accounts & documents/papers were produced. Instead of compliance of notice u/s!42[l), the Assessee filed objection dated 17.01.2013 challenging the validity of notice/proceedings u/s148. b. the A.O. disposed of the 'objection' dated 17.01.2013 of the assessee before completion of assessment which is in conformity with the judicial pronouncement in the case of GKN Drishaft