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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act." It is requested that the above grounds now being taken as additional legal grounds No. 9,10 and 11 may kindly be admitted and obliged.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available with the Assessing Officer on AIMS Module of ITBA, it was observed by the Assessing

MR. PRADEEP KUMAR,ALIGARH vs. ITO., WARD-4(2)(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with the ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessee submitted part replies along with supporting evidences, but ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that the submissions and evidences of the assessee were not found with the reply of the assessee. Assessee relied upon Instruction No. 03/2017 of the CBDT to be followed

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the scope of the appeal to convert the addition to one under section 69A

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 26-03-2022 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 13,80,050. The Learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte and dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that

M/S RADHARANI JEWELLERS LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh

69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on 26-03-2022 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 13,80,050. The Learned CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte and dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground that

SH RANJAN KUMAR ARORA,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(2)(1), FARRUKHABAD

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Ranjan Kumar Arora, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5/30, Nehru Road, Circle-4(2)(1), Farrukhabad, Up- 2096625 Farrukhabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aakpa0524D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2025

68 and 69 read with Section 115BBE of the Act and completed the assessment. This action of the Learned AO stood confirmed by the Learned NFAC. 5. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee to buttress the addition made by the Learned AO which stood sustained by the Learned NFAC. However, the Assessee had always tried to explain that

AMIT JAIN,FIROZABAD vs. ITO-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

68,500/- were added under section 69A by the AO which in first appeal, based on the statement recorded

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

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

68,605/-, on account of under section 69A of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact of the case

HARSH SALUJA ,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

68 of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the scope of the appeal to convert the addition to one under section 69A

SOURABH JAIN,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Saurabh Jain, Guna. 1, Near Sanjeevani Vs. Hospital Garha Colony, Guna, Madhaya Pradesh-473001 Pan-Bgjpj7915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 69A unwarranted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred not dealt to the ground regarding ignoring to the duplicate PAN allotted by the department instead of second copy of original (PAN AEDPJ2677P) because copy of Original PAN was not available with appellant. Thus set aside the matter without

AJIT SINGH,SHIVPURI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No 263/Agr/2025 is allowed

69A of the Act as unexplained. Assessee preferred first appeal against this reassessment order before ld CIT(A) who allowed assessee’s appeal vide order dated 18.03.2024. Meantime, this tribunal, vide order dated 20.09.2023, passed in ITA No 43/Agr/2020 (A.Y. 2010-11), set aside the original revisional order dated 26.03.2020 passed u/s. 263 of the Act and remitted the matter

DHARMENDRA SHARMA,GWALIOR vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Dharmendra Sharma, Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing In Front Of Narcotics Officer, Office, Ramkala Nagar, Ward-2(1), Morar, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Fejps7901J Jurisdictional Assessing Vs. Dharmendra Sharma, Officer, In Front Of Narcotics Office, Ward-2(1), Gwalior Ramkala Nagar, Morar, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Fejps7901J

68,234/- after an amount of Rs 41,030/- was credited to the Government account as TCS under Section 206CH of the Act. The Learned AO simply ignored the submissions of the Assessee and proceeded to make an addition of Rs 3,65,25,000/- under the head ‘income from business’ of the Assessee based on Form 26AS

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), GWALIOR, GWALIOR vs. DHARMENDRA SHARMA, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee as well as the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Dharmendra Sharma, Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing In Front Of Narcotics Officer, Office, Ramkala Nagar, Ward-2(1), Morar, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Fejps7901J Jurisdictional Assessing Vs. Dharmendra Sharma, Officer, In Front Of Narcotics Office, Ward-2(1), Gwalior Ramkala Nagar, Morar, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Fejps7901J

68,234/- after an amount of Rs 41,030/- was credited to the Government account as TCS under Section 206CH of the Act. The Learned AO simply ignored the submissions of the Assessee and proceeded to make an addition of Rs 3,65,25,000/- under the head ‘income from business’ of the Assessee based on Form 26AS

BIPIN BABU AGRAWAL,MATHURA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.149/Agr/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Bipin Babu Agarwal Dcit / Acit बनाम/ 16, Kamla Vihar Colony Central Circle Vs. Masani, Mathura 281 001 Agra "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aawpa-0864-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri M. M. Agrawal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [Cit(A)] Dated 28-06-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30-09-2021. Having Heard Vehement Arguments Of Both The Sides & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. During The Year, The Assessee Being Resident Individual Carried Out Business Activities In Proprietorship Concern Namely M/S Parshant Silver Handicrafts. Assessment Proceedings 2.1 The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Scrutinized Pursuant To Search Action On R.S. Bullion & Jewellers Group Of Cases At Mathura

section 145(3) of IT Act is misplaced since in the search proceedings the evidences have been found and seized and they clearly indicate that the books do not incorporate out of books sales and the same are discussed in the foregoing paras. Further another addition of Rs. 5,10,00,000/- u/s 68 of IT Act can very

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

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

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act are not attracted in the\ncase of the appellant. The AO has wrongly invoked the provisions of\nSection 147 of the Income Tax Act.\n4 That without prejudice to the relief allowed as per grounds, as above,\nthe authorities below have not considered the replies of the appellant\nfiled before them, after

RAJESH TYAGI,AMBAH vs. ITO WARD 1, MORENA, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2020-21 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Assessment Unit, S/O Laxmi Narayan Tyagi Gavri National Faceless Assessment Service, Gulab Ka Pura Ambah Centre, Income Tax Officer, Distt. Morena Ward-1, Morena Pan : Bmmpt3132K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Sandeep, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, even cash deposit amount is not correct which is Rs.5,10,000/- only. 8. BECAUSE under the facts and circumstance and in law the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 4,68

MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

68,751\n68,22,031\n5,43,77,066\n54,58,13,054\n36,17,16,578\n108,13,44,591\nPurchases\nIt was observed by Ld. AO that the bogus purchases in respect to first\ntwo parties was compiled from the bank statements of the two concerns\nas the assessee did not produce the ledger of these two parties

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

68,751\n68,22,031\n5,43,77,066\n54,58,13,054\n36,17,16,578\n108,13,44,591\nIt was observed by Ld. AO that the bogus purchases in respect to first\ntwo parties was compiled from the bank statements of the two concerns\nas the assessee did not produce the ledger of these two parties. There