SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 of the Act which was concluded by the finding that the revenue had failed to bring on record anything which could show that it was assessee’s own money which has (Asst. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) been deposited in the bank account of the donor. In the case of JatinderManchanda (supra) no question of validity of proceedings under

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)

68 SOT 197 (Delhi –Trib) wherein it was held that: “8.Let us, in the light of this legal position, revert to the facts of the case before us. All that the reasons recorded for reopening indicate is that cash deposits aggregating to Rs 10,24,100 have been made in the bank account of the assessee, but the mere fact

MODERN AGENCIES,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6, JHANSI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

68,184.63 Working of the excess stock valued at cost as declared by the assessee on the basis of the excess quantity of material found during survey and declared in the above Profit & Loss Account at Rs. 39,13,263/- is shown to have been computed by the assessee (appellant) as under— Physical statement date of survey taken by department

AVNINDRA MISHRA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68-108) likewise quashed the assessment based on approval mentioning “Yes I am satisfied” that it is a fit case for reopening u/s 147. (Para 8 to 10) In the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of 13. ‘Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO’, reported in 106 ITR 1 (APB- 109-118), the Hon’ble Apex

ANITA YADAV,MATHURA vs. ITO -1(3)(1), MATHURA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68-108) likewise quashed the assessment based on approval mentioning “Yes I am satisfied” that it is a fit case for reopening u/s 147. (Para 8 to 10) In the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of 13. ‘Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO’, reported in 106 ITR 1 (APB- 109-118), the Hon’ble Apex

BIJENDRA KUMAR,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68-108) likewise quashed the assessment based on approval mentioning I.T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017 11 “Yes I am satisfied” that it is a fit case for reopening u/s 147. (Para 8 to 10) In the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of 13. ‘Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO’, reported

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68-108) likewise quashed the assessment based on approval mentioning “Yes I am satisfied that it is a fit case for reopening u/s 147”. (Paras 8 to 10) 13. Apropos the decisions cited by the ld. DR, they are dealt with as follows. In the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of ‘Parashuram 14. Pottery Works

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68-108) likewise quashed the assessment based on approval mentioning “Yes I am satisfied that it is a fit case for reopening u/s 147”. (Paras 8 to 10) 13. Apropos the decisions cited by the ld. DR, they are dealt with as follows. In the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Judgment in the case of ‘Parashuram 14. Pottery Works