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)

51,760/- (56.47 X 8000). Since, the assessee has declared agricultural income of Rs. 20,14,790/- and claimed as exempt in the return, the differential sum of Rs. 15,63,030/- was sought to be added by the ld AO by treating it as income from other sources. 5. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submission

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)

51,760/- (56.47 X 8000). Since, the assessee has declared agricultural income of Rs. 20,14,790/- and claimed as exempt in the return, the differential sum of Rs. 15,63,030/- was sought to be added by the ld AO by treating it as income from other sources. 5. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submission

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

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

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

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

51,60,273/-’. Page 4 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/12/2016, the legal heirs of the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) , the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20/11/2017 upheld the validity of the assessment order and directed the A.O. to allow the cost of acquisition of the property

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

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

SARVESH DEVI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MADAN LAL TOMAR),AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Ward-4(3)(1), 51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eshpd4540M Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ESHPD4540M Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 311/AGR/2025 for AY 2007-08, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

JAY SINGH,MORENA vs. ITO-1, MORENA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Jay Singh, Vs. Ito, Gram Khaneta, Maharajpur, Ward-1, Morena, Madhya Pradesh Morena (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cfwps1529H

u/s 148 dt. 29.03.2017 served upon the assessee on 05.04.2017 is barred by limitation, as per provisions of section 149 of Income Tax Act, the assessment completed subsequent to it is bad in law, liable to be set aside. Ground No. 7 (Additional Legal Ground) That while passing the order dt. 26.12.24, NFAC have completely ignored that the provisions