VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

penalty in terms of section 270AA of the Act. The assessee however preferred an application under section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation before the Central Board of Direct Taxes for Form No. 68

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 271(l)(c). Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has not specifically mentioned whether Explanation 1 (A) is applicable or Explanation 1(B). Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by simply referring to Explanation 1. 6. Because even otherwise neither Explanation 1(A) is applicable

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of the Act in the hands of the firm. 15. The Assessing Officer has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of section

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

penalty under section 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed by the Assessee Company on 15-11-2014 declaring total income of Rs. Nil under normal

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s. 80C of the Act. 6. Aggrieved revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,07,000 made

NALANDA BUILDERS &DVELOPERS I P LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

penalty as imposed under Section 271AAB(l)(b) of the Income Tax Act by the AO, the authority below has not appreciated the facts that the additions are being made in the assessment under Section 68

BANCO CONSTRUCTION,BANSAL KOTHI, NEHRU COLONY THATIPUR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbanco Construction, Vs. Acit, Bansal Kothi, Nehru Faceless, Gwalior Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfb7336D Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

68,951. The various notices under section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the Assessee on 29- 11-2021 and 3-1-2022 and final show-cause notice dated 14-3-2022 during the course of assessment proceedings. Since there was no compliance to the said notices, penalty

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption of Rs. 95,20,372 being the long term capital gain arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. Under section

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the I.T. Act of aggregate cash deposit of Rs. 12,97,291/- (3,30,471 + 9,66,820) in Union Bank of India SB A/c No. 2969 as it is a settled law that Bank Pass Book is not Books of Accounts hence the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), is wrong, illegal and against the peculiar

AMIT JAIN,FIROZABAD vs. ITO-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

penalty is levied. Because, while making the assessment the ‘AO’ and while sustaining 3. addition Ld. ‘CIT(A)’ made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. 4. Because the appellant denies liability of interest under section 234B of the Act. ITA 287/Agr/ 2017 Shri Amit Jain AY 13-14 4 5. Because, the order appealed against

DCIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. B.P. EDIBLE OIL PVT LTD, GWALIOR

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2011-12

Penalty proceedings are separately being initiated for concealment of income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,31,50,OOO/-) 3. The assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer preferred an appeal before the Commission. Before the Commissioner, the assessee had filed various written submissions and also filed documents. In all fairness

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

penalty proceedings initiated under section 271AAC and 270A have been wrongly initiated and consequential to additions which are not sustainable.” 4 | P a g e 7. At the time of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that during demonetization period, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.1.00 crore. In this regard, he brought to our notice page

HARSH SALUJA ,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

penalty was levied on the addition of Rs.12,97,291/-. The Tribunal, however, has deleted the entire addition by holdings as follows: “4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs.12,97,291/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, representing the deposits as unexplained. The argument

SOURABH JAIN,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Saurabh Jain, Guna. 1, Near Sanjeevani Vs. Hospital Garha Colony, Guna, Madhaya Pradesh-473001 Pan-Bgjpj7915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,300/- in bank account no. 10180002441668 out of cash sale of god poshak/cloth of his branch as well as cash deposit into another Bank A/c no. 10180003356720 in HO books duly account but treated as unrecorded cash. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred not dealt to the ground

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

penalty under Section 201 read with Section 221 of the I.T. Act. In addition, he would also be liable under Section 201(1A) to pay simple interest at 12 per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid. The most

M/S NALANDA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS I. PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of the Income Tax Act, the ITA Nos. 35 to 38/Agr/2017 2 authorities below have completely ignored the submissions and the explanation offered before them without appreciating the nature of assessee's business and also of its entries, no addition is liable to be made. The addition sustained by the learned CIT (Appeal) is liable to be deleted

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

68 of the Act by arbitrarily treating the genuine investment made by the shareholders in the share capital of the appellant as alleged accommodation entry, deserves to be deleted. 6. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in not providing the appellant the informations and documents/material for which specific request(s) was made. It is settled