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 of the Act would be applicable. On perusal of the Explanation 2(b) of Section

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee furnished the list of parties from whom it had made purchases. The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of frozen meat, hide, MBM, poultry feed, tallow etc., from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

68,625/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld AO proceeded to examine the veracity of purchases made by the Assessee. The Assessee furnished the list of parties from whom it had made purchases. The Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacture and export of frozen meat, hide, MBM, poultry feed, tallow etc., from