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

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

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

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)

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, at the outset objected to the submissions made by the learnedA.R

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, 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

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

section 263 of the I.T. Act. deserves to be quashed. 6. That any other relief or reliefs deemed fit in the facts and circumstance of the case may be granted." 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under:- A. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the manufacturing business of meat and meat

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

section 263 of the I.T. Act. deserves to be quashed. 6. That any other relief or reliefs deemed fit in the facts and circumstance of the case may be granted." 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted as under:- A. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the manufacturing business of meat and meat

USHA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. ITO 4(4), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

57 (P & H). 3. Vikram Kothari (HUF) Vs. State of U.P., [2011] Taxmann.com 280/200 Taxmann.com 152 (Alld). 4. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Vs. Addl. CIT [2013] 30 Taxmann.com, 211 (Bom). 5. Asstt.CIT Vs. Rajesh Jhavri, [2007] 291 ITR 500/161 Taxman 316 (SC). 6. Chief Commissioner (Admn.) (U.P.) V. Kanhaiya Lal Kapoor, [2005] 147 Taxman, 12 (All). 7. Pooran

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