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

section 147 of the Act, and proceedings u/s 147 were initiated against the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued questionnaire to the assessee. The AO has recorded in the assessment order that the assessee filed his return of income on 16.7.2018 in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act as is emerging from the reassessment order passed by the Assessing

DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S VACMET PACKAGINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., AGRA

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 68 of IT Act and thus passing perverse order. 13. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in coming to conclusion that assessee had made full and true I.T.A No. 45/Agra/2015 5 disclosure before the AO at the time of assessment u/s 153A of the IT. Act. 14. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred

BIJENDRA KUMAR,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

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

50,40,273/-. The A.O. issued enquiry letter u/s 133(6) of the Act, but the deceased Assessee Late Sh. Tej Singh did not reply the same. After obtaining statutory sanction u/s 151 of the Act, a notice u/s 148 was issued by the A.O. The reasons for issuing notice dated 30/03/2016 u/s 148 of the Act reads as under

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the reopening in the case of the assessee

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

u/s. 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case law applicable in the case of the assessee, we I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017 8 are of the considered view that the reopening in the case

SHRI ATUL 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

Section 263 of the Act and passing the Impugned Order has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO in the case of the Appellant passed the Assessment Order dated 31.10.2019 after duly considering all submissions of the Appellant. 4. That the Ld. Pr. CIT while making the order U/S 263 had ignored that the Asstt Order

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

Section 263 of the Act and passing the Impugned Order has failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO in the case of the Appellant passed the Assessment Order dated 31.10.2019 after duly considering all submissions of the Appellant. 4. That the Ld. Pr. CIT while making the order U/S 263 had ignored that the Asstt Order

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.

reassessment was completed on 30.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by treating the net profit of Rs.19,90,13,470/- as per the stock summary taken from the hard disk impounded during the survey as income of the assessee and brought to tax accordingly. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the action

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.

reassessment was completed on 30.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by treating the net profit of Rs.19,90,13,470/- as per the stock summary taken from the hard disk impounded during the survey as income of the assessee and brought to tax accordingly. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the action

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)

50,000/-as above is chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment and notice u/s 148 may be issued to the assessee after prior approval of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Agra." 9. Per contra, the learned D.R.ShriWaseemArshad, at the outset objected to the submissions made by the learnedA.R and stated that since assessee had not challenged

SHRI NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

50,000/-was accepted as fully explained by the Ld CIT(A) also. c) That the order of Ld CIT(A) while confirming the addition of Rs.17,75,000/- is vitiated in law as the same is badly affected by extraneous considerations and is based entirely on surmises, conjectures and suspicion. 6. That the orders of the authorities below

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)

50,00,000/- Stamps purchased Rs. 7,53,700/- Total Rs. 57,53,700 Half share of Smt. PremwatiSuman Rs. 28,76,850/- In view of above, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 28,76,850/- has escaped assessment. Dated: 25.03.2015 Income tax Officer 1(3), Agra” 9. Per contra, the learned D.RShriWaseemArshad

SHRI RISHI KUMAR GUPTA,AGRA vs. CIT CIRCLE 1, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

50,730/- which the appellant hasnot shown in his computation of income actually belonged to Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta amounting to Rs.3,90,730/-(copy of the computation furnished) and Gupta AcademipPvt. Ltd. of Rs.3,60,000/- (copy of P&L Account filed. It was explained by the appellant that Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta and Gupta Academic Pvt. Ltd were

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was completed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), JHANSI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was completed u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 26.03.2022 wherein, loss from house property of Rs. 52,567/- was disallowed apart from making addition on account of unexplained money u/s 69A in respect of credits in the bank account in the sum of Rs. 28,20,500 and denying deduction under Chapter