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)

148 of the Act as is evident from para-2of the Judgment which reads that “The petitioner is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of yarn and knitted fabrics from its industrial undertaking situate in District Mathura. The petitioner claims that it is a 100% Export Oriented Unit

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

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

GOVIND SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

68 of the IT Act. The first appeal filed by the appellant assessee was dismissed by the ld CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 07.07.2025, against which this second appeal. 6. As regards the preliminary issue raised through the additional ground noted hereinabove, the approval granted by the ld PCIT-1-(Agra) in terms of section

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

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

148, having been issued after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and incorrect invocation of section 68

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

148, having been issued after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year under consideration and incorrect invocation of section 68

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

148", "Section 40A(2b)", "Section 131", "Section 147", "Section 68", "Section 115BBE", "Section 132(1)", "Section

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 of the Income Tax Act. The notice issued under Section 148

ACIT, C 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SUNIL KUMAR JOSHAN, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Vs. Sunil Kumar Joshan, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Circle-2(1)(1), Agra Km Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P Co 07/Agr/2025 (In Ita No.494/Agr/2025) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sunil Kumar Joshan, Vs. Acit, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Km Circle-2(1)(1), Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Agra Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act without conducting any enquiries on his side. The following are the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee before the Learned AO to prove the nature and source of credit of the aforesaid sums:- Sl Particulars PB No. Page No. 1 Invitation letter of PHI Singapore dated 28.08.2012 with enclosures

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

148 of the Act dated 30-03-2021. The reassessment ultimately stood completed by treating M/s Capital Trade Link Ltd as a penny stock and the sale proceeds of shares received by the Assessee in the sum of Rs. 95,20,372/- was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

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)

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 solely on the basis of general nature of information received from DGIT

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

148 of the Act. The assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act on 26-3-2022 determining total income at Rs. 1,68

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "147", "148", "40A(2B)", "68", "115BBE", "131", "133(6)", "148A(d)" ], "issues": "Whether the Principal

SATYADEV SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri Satyadev Singh, Village Vs..Ito,3,(4), Jaiswa, Post Bakla, Mathura. Mathura. Panno.Ahbps7182D (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 2(15) of the 'Act' therefore, even on merits no addition can be made in peculiar facts of the case where assessee has no other source of Income expect Agriculture Income. 7. BECAUSE, 'appellant' has sufficiently and satisfactorily explained the deposits in his bank account and the addition has been made on presumptions and surmises in 3 utter

RADHIKA GARG,HATHRAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Radhika Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14/100, Kambhu Tola Ward-2(1)(3), Hospital Road, Hathras, Up Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Afepg2999H Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/11/2025

68 days. Considering the reasons adduced in the condonation petition, I am inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication in the interest of substantial justice. 3. I find that the assessee vide ground number 5 had raised a preliminary ground stating that the statutory notice under section