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

68 of the Act. 3 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 6. Aggrieved, the assessee has come up in this appeal, raising following grounds of appeal : “1. Because under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) NFAC under section 250 of the Income

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

151, read with section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) – High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of I.T.A No. 422/Agra/2017 10 assessment

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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

151, read with section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) – High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid – Whether Special Leave

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

151, read with section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) – High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid – Whether Special Leave

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

151, read with section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) – High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid – Whether Special Leave

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

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

151, read with section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Sanction for issue of notice (Recording of satisfaction) – High Court by impugned order held that where Joint Commissioner recorded satisfaction in mechanical manner and without application of mind to accord sanction for issuing notice under section 148, reopening of assessment was invalid – Whether Special Leave

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 115BBE of the Act made on account of cash deposit during demonetization period ? 7. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.33,00,923/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act without properly considering assessee’s detailed submissions and documentary evidences

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

151 of the Act. 4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 19,57,251/-made by the Ld Assessing Officer to the total income of the appellant on account of 5 percent of total credits in the bank account of the appellant

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

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

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

68,040/- Yours Faithfully, (Pratibha Singh) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-08, New Delhi” 11. From the above proposal, it is clear that the same is not accompanied by any assessment folder, seized material or any other related documents for completion of assessment. It means that before the Additional CIT, only a proposal vide letter F.No.ACIT/Central

HYDRISE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA

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

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

68,040/- Yours Faithfully, (Pratibha Singh) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-08, New Delhi” 11. From the above proposal, it is clear that the same is not accompanied by any assessment folder, seized material or any other related documents for completion of assessment. It means that before the Additional CIT, only a proposal vide letter F.No.ACIT/Central

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

151 of I.T.Act, 1961 whereas it was wrong, giving in the mechanical manner without application of independent mind. 3. 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 addition of Rs. 95,20,372 under section 68

RAVENDRA SINGH,AGRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and direct the ld

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Ravendra Singh Vs. Acit, 28, Tota Ka Taal Circle 1(2)(1), Loha Mandi, Uttar Pradesh Agra Pan : Abyps5329K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Shashank Agarwal, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 Order

151 was obtained. 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to consider that the Assessing Officer did not furnish the reasons recorded for reopening despite request, thereby vitiating the reassessment. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 8,74,800 made under section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Anju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, D-26, Kamla Nagar, Ward-2(1)(1), Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awtpa4297L Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

151 of the Act for reopening of assessment without application of mind invalidates the order issued u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act Anju Agarwal 3. Because the appellant had not maintained any books of account and there was no credit of Rs. 49,98,136, the provisions of section 68

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)

151 of the Act before issuing Notice under section 148 of the Act was though accorded by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax but without application of mind in a mechanical manner, leading the Notice issued under section 148 of the Act to be held without jurisdiction and consequent assessment order passed in pursuance of such an invalid

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, 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)

Section 68 of the Act. Further, we find that in the proforma reproduced above for seeking approval u/s 151

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)

Section 68 of the Act. Further, we find that in the proforma reproduced above for seeking approval u/s 151

M/S SHIVHARE ROADLINES,GWALIOR vs. JT. C.I.T., RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

68 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. He stated that as per Rule 6 of the Service tax Rules, 1994, liability to make payment of service tax arises at the time of realization of consideration from the service recipient or at the time of receipt of payment, which was applicable for the year under consideration being

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

151 as expenditure which was carried out of infrastructure fund. (8) Because· the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs39,34, 135 in respect of old outstanding entries in bank reconciliation statement. (9) Because the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 36,31,60,509 in respect of liabilities shown under