VINEET KUMAR RITURAJ PAWAR,ALIGARH vs. ITO., WARD-4(1)(3), ALIGARH, ALIGARH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

cash deposited during the demonetization period. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. However, in compliance to show cause notice dated 04.11.2019 issued u/s. 144 of the Act, the assessee submitted that he received housing loan of Rs.28,32,500/- from Dewan Housing Finance in five installments as under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

Cash deposit in savings bank account – Rs. 1,06,86,000/- b) Payments made through credit card – Rs. 2,99,309/- c) Sale of immovable property – Rs. 1,71,97,600/- d) Income from lottery / crossword puzzle in terms of section 194B based on the TDS

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

cash deposits amounting to Rs.2,80,000/-, the AO estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.16,00,408/-, treating the same to be bogus. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.8 lac, by allowing 50% as expenditure and treating the same to have been

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

cash deposits amounting to Rs.2,80,000/-, the AO estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.16,00,408/-, treating the same to be bogus. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), by virtue of the impugned order, estimated the assessee’s income from Rasleela at Rs.8 lac, by allowing 50% as expenditure and treating the same to have been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

cash credit account (working capital loan) is concerned, the interest amount is automatically debited to the account of the borrower, it is not required to be paid separately. As far as Section 43B is concerned, the interest payment to Banks are allowable on the basis of actual payment. In the present case the same was not paid, thus treatment

SHRI OM PRAKASH SINGH,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS. 9. BECAUSE, while making the assessment the authorities below made various observations/ conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. While making the addition submission made and evidences filed have been rejected arbitrarily. 10. BECAUSE, the order appealed against is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the facts, material on record, law and principles of natural justice. The ‘appellant’ reserves

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

cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force : (2) Where the person responsible for paying any such sum chargeable under this Act (other than interest on securities and salary) to a non-resident considers that the whole of such sum would

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

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

TDS having been deducted during the year, the expenditure is allowable u/s 40(a). The disallowance is wholly illegal. The same may kindly be directed to be deleted. (12) Pause Ld.CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition Rs 46, 78, 719/- in respect of non inclusion of other receipt under infrastructure fund. The Ld.CIT

ANUPAM MITTAL,AGRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

deposited in the creditors account and then the lending was made to the assessee and thus such transaction does not prove the creditworthiness of the unsecured lender. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer relied upon the various case laws and ultimately held that the assessee had failed to prove the creditworthiness of the respective creditors. The Assessing Officer also noted that creditors