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

57,35,180/- as originally determined by the Assessing\nOfficer in the assessment order dated 09.04.2021. Notice of\ndemand and challan is issued accordingly.\"\nH.\nFrom the above sequence of events and documentary evidences, it is\nvery much clear that the AO was well aware about the reasons for\nreopening of the assessment u/s 148 and he took

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

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

reassessment proceedings. It would Page 12 of 23 Tej Singh vs. ITO result in deletion of all the additions. Ground No. 1 of appeal of assessee is, accordingly, allowed. In view of 9 ITA No. 358/Agra/2011 this, the other grounds have only academic interest and as such, we do not find it necessary to decide the issue on merits

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

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

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

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)

57,35,180/- as originally determined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 09.04.2021. Notice of demand and challan is issued accordingly.” H. From the above sequence of events and documentary evidences, it is very much clear that the AO was well aware about the reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 and he took

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)

57,35,180/- as originally determined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 09.04.2021. Notice of demand and challan is issued accordingly.” H. From the above sequence of events and documentary evidences, it is very much clear that the AO was well aware about the reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 and he took

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)

57,35,180/- as originally determined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order dated 09.04.2021. Notice of demand and challan is issued accordingly.” H. From the above sequence of events and documentary evidences, it is very much clear that the AO was well aware about the reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 and he took

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

57,35,180/- as originally determined by the Assessing\nOfficer in the assessment order dated 09.04.2021. Notice of\ndemand and challan is issued accordingly.\"\nH. From the above sequence of events and documentary evidences, it is\nvery much clear that the AO was well aware about the reasons for\nreopening of the assessment u/s 148 and he took

YOGENDRA SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ETAH

In the result, the appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Yogendra Sharma, I-4695, 2Nd Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Floor, Gali No. 4-B, Balbir Nagar Ward 3(2), Etah. Extension, Shahdara, Delhi. Pan :Cgkps6492J (Appellant) (Respondent)

u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has declared income from salary of Rs.1,74,000/- and income from business of Rs.1,38,500/- against gross receipts of Rs.4,50,000/-. Besides above, the assessee has declared nil income

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

57,08,051\nM/s\nJanta\nEnterprises Prop.\nShree Govind\n21,91,69,175\n21,91,69,175\nM/s Shri Ram\nTraders Prop.\nDaljeet Kumar\n3,97,08,722\n3,97,08,722\nM/s Bankey Bihari\nEdible Oils Prop.\nAkash Mittal\n4,71,30,630\n4,71,30,630\nTotal Bogus

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

57,08,051\nM/s\nJanta\nEnterprises Prop.\nShree Govind\n21,91,69,175\n21,91,69,175\nM/s Shri Ram\nTraders Prop.\nDaljeet Kumar\n3,97,08,722\n3,97,08,722\nM/s Bankey Bihari\nEdible Oils Prop.\nAkash Mittal\n4,71,30,630\n4,71,30,630\nTotal Bogus\nPurchases