ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

148 which were reopened on this issue of alleged bogus purchases from Md. Irfan, had examined each and every issue and even the statement of Md. Irfan was also recorded by the AO u/s 131, in which, Md.Irfan confirmed the supply of Alive animals to the assessee and regarding the withdrawal of cash from his bank account, partially he stated

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

148 which were reopened on this issue of alleged bogus purchases from Md. Irfan, had examined each and every issue and even the statement of Md. Irfan was also recorded by the AO u/s 131, in which, Md.Irfan confirmed the supply of Alive animals to the assessee and regarding the withdrawal of cash from his bank account, partially he stated

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

bogus purchases from Md. Irfan. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially accepted the purchases as genuine after investigations, but the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings u/s 263, viewing the AO's assessment as erroneous and prejudicial.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT had erred in invoking Section 263 as the AO had conducted adequate inquiries, recorded statements, and applied

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

bogus purchases from one Md. Irfan. The Assessing Officer (AO) initially accepted the purchases in the original assessment and during reassessment, after recording Md. Irfan's statement. However, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) initiated revision proceedings u/s 263, believing the AO had not conducted proper inquiries. The PCIT set aside the assessment order, directing fresh inquiries.", "held

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

purchases. The ITAT also observed that the valuation differences for investments were within the tolerance range.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "153A", "143(3)", "145", "142A", "37(1)", "69B", "69C", "234A", "234B", "234C", "132", "132A", "147", "148", "44AD", "69A" ], "issues": "Whether additions made under section 153A based on alleged bogus

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

bogus purchases and unexplained investments, which were largely confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee contended that no incriminating material was found during the search for these additions, rendering the AO's jurisdiction under Section 153A invalid for completed assessment years.", "held": "The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 153A require incriminating material found

TEJ SINGH,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(4), MATHURA

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

purchased shares and subsequently sold these shares at a much higher value. For the assessment year 1997- 98, the assessees disclosed long-term capital gains arising from the transaction. On the basis of the information received by the Deputy Director (Investigation), the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148. The files were then put up before the Commissioner

SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

148 of the Act. Statutory notice u/s. 143(2) and notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee raised objections against the reasons for reopening, which were disposed of on 18.02.2022. Further, assessee submitted his reply dated 04.02.2022. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee contended that it had purchased steel and building

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

148 of the Act stood issued to the Assessee on 27-3-2023 after taking prior approval under Section 151 of the Act from the competent authority. The reassessment stood completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23-3- 2024 determining total income of the Assessee at Rs. 56,35,106/- after making an addition

SARIF,JALESAR ETAH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1) , ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

148 dated 30.07.2022, in response to 2 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 which the assessee filed return of income, declaring the same income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition

SARIF,JALESAR, ETAH vs. ASSESSIN OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), DINESH NAGAR ETAH

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

148 dated 30.07.2022, in response to 2 | P a g e ITA No.463 & 464/Agr/2025 which the assessee filed return of income, declaring the same income as declared in original return. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act were issued. Being not satisfied with the replies of assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition

SOMDUTT BANSAL,GWALIOR vs. INCOME T AX OFFICER, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 151 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), notice was issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 and duly served on the assessee. In response, assessee filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.7,17,900/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served

SH. VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LALITPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

148. Explanations/replies offered by assessee with respect to above information stood accepted by the Assessing Officer. However, it was further gathered from the said information that the assessee had shown bogus sales of Rs.1,18,52,322/- to M/s. Mahaveer Prasad Suresh Kumar, New Delhi. In response to statutory notices, the assessee submitted supporting documents including purchase orders, ledger extracts