HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

147 of the Act. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of 718,23,00,000/- under section 68

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act. So, Notice u/s 148 is being issued in this case.” 12. In the original assessment the AO has assessed income of the assessee in the following manner (refer para 4.1 of AO’s order). Rs. 68

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act mandates that it is exclusively the satisfaction of assessing authority based on some direct, correct and relevant material which is material and which could lay the foundation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) remanded the matter to the AO, asking for a remand report

M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act mandates that it is exclusively the satisfaction of assessing authority based on some direct, correct and relevant material which is material and which could lay the foundation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act.” 6. The ld. CIT(A) remanded the matter to the AO, asking for a remand report

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Hence addition of Rs. 92,00,000/- made by the AO on this account is hereby confirmed. 6. The ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the Authorities below he contended that the appellant is a partnership firm comprising of two partners, namely sh. Naveen Chand Verma

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68. Further reliance to “A. GovindarajuluMudaliarVs CIT”,(Supra) 28. reported in (1958) 34 ITR 0807(S.C) is misplaced as in this case also no question of reopening was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. In view of the above discussion and the reasons set out as above, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons

NAVEEN GULU MULANI,AGRA vs. ITO, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, but the deposits are not the real income as defined under Section 2(24) read with Section 14 of the Income Tax Act so as to attract the provisions of Section 147

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)

147 of I.T.Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) read with section 148 of the Act has been initiated in the case of the appellant, thus in the light of facts and in law the learned CIT(A), Aligarh should have annulled/quashed the unlawfully made reassessment by the AO. 2 2. That the AO having reopened the assessment

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

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 4 That without prejudice to the relief allowed as per grounds, as above, the authorities below have not considered the replies of the appellant filed before them, after taking into consideration the replies and the submissions made before them, no addition is liable to be made, addition made by the AO, sustained

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

147 where ‘reasons’ recorded were, as reproduced in the ITAT order in para-2 were as under: (Asst. Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) “In this case as per information available with this office the assessee has purchased an immovable property for Rs.1,15,00,000/- during f.y 2007-08 relevant to A.Y 2008-09. To verify the source of investment

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re-assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re-assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.” In the case

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re-assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re-assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.” I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re- assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re- assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 10 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re- assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re- assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are I.T.A No. 238/Agra/2018 10 & I.T.A No. 129/Agra/2018 therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) are non est in law and without jurisdiction, hence, the re-assessment is quashed. Since we have already quashed the re-assessment, the other grounds have become academic and are therefore not adjudicated and accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.” I.T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017

DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S VACMET PACKAGINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., AGRA

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

section 68 of IT Act and thus passing perverse order. 13. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in coming to conclusion that assessee had made full and true I.T.A No. 45/Agra/2015 5 disclosure before the AO at the time of assessment u/s 153A of the IT. Act. 14. That Ld. CIT (A) has erred

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)

147 where ‘reasons’ recorded were, as reproduced in the ITAT order in para-2 were as under: “In this case as per information available with this office the assessee has purchased an immovable property for Rs.1,15,00,000/- during F.Y 2007-08 relevant to A.Y 2008- 09. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) To verify the source of investment

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

68 of the Act. Further, we find that in the proforma reproduced above for seeking approval u/s 151 of the Act, in response to Question No. 7, the ld AO had mentioned that the provision of Explanation 2(b) of Section 147