RATNESH KUMAR JAIN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

69,075/- (19.53% of Gross\nReceipts) and N.P. of Rs.6,58,880/- (8.2% of the Gross Receipts). The\nAO observed that the assessee has deposited in his bank account total\namount of Rs.1,68,53,128/-, out of which cash deposits were to the tune\nof Rs.1,28,13,500/-. The assessee was asked by the Assessing Officer to\nexplain

SINGH CARRIERS,JHANSI vs. WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Singh Carriers, Ward-2(3)(1), 2716, Swamipuram Vs. Jhansi. Colony, Gwalior Road, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh-284003. Pan-Aacfs9607B (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 r.w.s 144 of the Act as the assessee failed to comply any notice issued by the Assessing Officer and, thus, the AO made addition of Rs.21,14,22,258/- u/s 69 of the Act by holding the credits in the bank account as unexplained money. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with ground of appeal No.1

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

147 read with section 148 of the Act, and notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2019 was issued by the AO to the assessee seeking to reopen the concluded assessment. There was no response from the assessee to the notice u/s. 148. Further, statutory notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued to the assessee in the reassessment proceedings

VISHNU SONI,SHIVPURI vs. ITO, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Mr. Vishnu Soni Ito, Ashok Nagar, Sadar Bazar, Vs. Aayakar Bawan, Shivpuri, Citiy Centre, Madhya Pradesh-473551 Gwalior, Madhya Pan-Awlps6188C Pradesh-474001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

reassessment order by making addition of Rs.58,98,125/- being 50% in amount of investment made in acquisition of the immovable property (including the stamp charges) and further made addition of Rs.1,87,500/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being the difference between the sale consideration and the circle rate. Against such order, an appeal was filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

69,080/- and completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on 30-3- 2022. This assessment was framed by the Learned JAO, Income Tax Officer, Ajit Singh Ashok Nagar. It is pertinent to note that both the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued by the Learned JAO and reassessment was framed

BIKESH KUMAR,FIROZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(1) , FIROZABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbikesh Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nagla Bhoop Nasirpur, Ward-2(2)(1), Shikhabad Firozabad, Firozabad Firozabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bglpk0327A Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

u/s 250 is bad in law, liable to be set aside.” 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of selling potatoes to persons outside Agra for which the buyers were sending the sales consideration by depositing the money in the bank account of the assessee

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

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\n83,47,111\n10,42,68,751\n68,22,031\n5,43,77,066\n54,58,13,054\n36,17,16,578\n108

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

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\n83,47,111\n10,42,68,751\n68,22,031\n5,43,77,066\n54,58,13,054\n36,17,16,578\n108