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

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

250 of the Income Tax Act. 8. That the AO has erred on facts and in law while making the addition by disallowing of the expenses(by estimate) out of the expenses claimed under the Head ‘general administration and selling expenses’ , claimed as per provisions of Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, no disallowance is called for being

KNP ASSOCIATES,AGRA vs. WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshknp Associates, Vs. Acit, 10, Panchwati Colony, Circle-1, Vinay Nagar, Bodla, Agra Nashik (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaufk5403H Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Molhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

250 of the Act. The Appeal filed by KNP Associates the Appellant has been dismissed for non-prosecution. No findings have been given on merit, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 3. BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the order passed by the Id Assessing officer dated

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)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) engaged in the business of trading in silver and gold ornaments under the name and style/proprietorship

ITO 1(2), GWALIOR vs. SMT REENA AGRAWAL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

6 residential house in India (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— (a) if the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole

SOURABH KUMAR SONI,ASHOKNAGAR (M.P) vs. ITO - ASHOKNAGAR, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

250 that the assessee has only submitted only the bank statement and no other proof which is clearly Incorrect. The assessee has attached the Bank statements, reconciliation of the bank statement with the deposited made during the demonetisation period, copy of statement of MP Online and the assessee has In point no 5,6,7 of the submission stated

LOKENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD, 1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Pan Masala and Zarda as proprietor of M/s Radha

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(A) has allowed assessee’s first appeal for statistical purposes, deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Briefly stating, the appellant assessee is a partnership firm and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and export

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, the appellate order is liable to be\nset aside.\n2 That while passing of the order, the learned CIT (Appeals) has not\ndisposed of the grounds are being taken by the appellant in the appeal.\nThe order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law, liable to\nbe set aside.\n3 That

VEENA SINGH,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

68 r.w.s. 115BBE. After allowing Chapter VIA deductions, the total assessed income was determined at Rs.1,09,52,440/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 5. Assessee has filed the second appeal on the various grounds on merits of additions made by Assessing Officer. 6. Perused the records

ARJUN TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. I.T.O.-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 68 of the Act, in respect of the following parties: Name of share applicants Share application money received J SINGH TRADING & INVESTMENT 500,000 PVT. LTD. 300,000 MODI ROAD LINES PVT, LTD. 300,000 VIKAS TAYAL 200,000 PERFORMANCE TRADING & 500,000 H.V. TRADERS PVT. LTD. 400,000 ABM ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. 250,000 LTD. ADISH JAIN

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

250(6) of the Act hence the order is bad in law and llable to be quashed. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147 to 151 were invalid and void ab initio as the mandatory pre-conditions were not fulfilled and no valid approval under section 151 was obtained

SH. KULDEEP SRIVASTAVA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), MATHURA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

250/- in the names of Kanhiyalal ‘s sons. Kanhiyalal, the assesse’s managing partner, disavowed all knowledge as to the capacity of the creditors to advance the said amounts and, in fact, he admitted that the creditors had no independent source of income and he could not explain the said cash credits. The assesse, however, contended that the creditors

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,ETAH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

68 of the Act and taxed the same as per provisions of section 158BBE of the Act vide assessment order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 5. The appellant assessee has filed this appeal

SHARAD MAHESHWARI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR (M. P.), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sharad Maheshwari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W-63, 3Rd Floor, Ward-3(2), Greater Kailash-2, Gwalior South Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

250/- received from her sister Mrs. Shashi Bansal, resident of F-303, Saritha Vihar, New Delhi- 110076 PAN- AAUPB6378F and she has also declared the same in her income tax return. The assessee also claimed to have received gifts from Manju Agarwal of Rs 6,25,000/-, among other parties. The assessee submitted the documents regarding the creditworthiness of these

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

6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, raising following grounds of appeal : “1. BECAUSE, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act is bad in law and on facts and deserves to be quashed. 2. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

250 of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte and confirmed the assessment order. 5. Assessee has filed this appeal on the following grounds : “1. Ground No. 1: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO are erroneous both

KASTURI DEVI,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ETAH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. At the very outset, we notice that this second appeal was filed on 03.01.2025 against impugned order dated 06.05.2024 by a delay of about 182 days. None has turned