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)

32 to 35 of his order and then, the assessee’s submissions before the CIT(A) have been reproduced at pages 35 to page 40 of his order and following submissions were made:- a). Mr. Irfan has stated that he was doing the sale and purchase of Life Animals from Agriculturist and then selling the same to assessee concerned, which

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)

32 to 35 of his order and then, the assessee’s submissions before the CIT(A) have been reproduced at pages 35 to page 40 of his order and following submissions were made:- a). Mr. Irfan has stated that he was doing the sale and purchase of Life Animals from Agriculturist and then selling the same to assessee concerned, which

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

section 263 of the Act. He remitted the order back to the AO\nto pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries.\n9.\nOn careful consideration of material facts on record, we observed that Ld\nPCIT had completely ignored the other facts on record that in the case of\nIrfan, in subsequent appeal before CIT(A), the addition was deleted. Further

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

section 263 of the Act. He remitted the order back to the AO\nto pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries.\n9. On careful consideration of material facts on record, we observed that Ld\nPCIT had completely ignored the other facts on record that in the case of\nIrfan, in subsequent appeal before CIT(A), the addition was deleted. Further

SMT. VIDHYA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(4), AGRA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

purchase of assets etc., in the form of gifts, share application money, loans etc. 2. To inflate expense in the trading and profit and loss account so as to reduce the real profits and thereby pay less taxes. It has been revealed that the following entries have been received by the assessee:...." 29.2 The details of six entries were then

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

purchase of property. In view of the above facts, I have reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Issue notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 21. The Hon’ble ITAT quashed Notice under section 148 by observing that: “From the reading of the reasons, it is quite evident that

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

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

bogus liability was created by the assessee and refund of allotment money of Rs.2,37,29,097/- was made in cash on a single day through unsigned voucher. ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 18 (vi) That, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.57,68,605/-, on account of under section

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

purchased,/invested amounts made as discussed by the assessee, are complete and genuine. The objection of the assessee company are carefully considered which are examined in the light of information received as well as factual and legal aspect. I.T.A Nos. 41 & 40/Agra/2017 12 In the instant case, what was to be seen was on the prime-facie material, the sufficiency

M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

purchased,/invested amounts made as discussed by the assessee, are complete and genuine. The objection of the assessee company are carefully considered which are examined in the light of information received as well as factual and legal aspect. I.T.A Nos. 41 & 40/Agra/2017 12 In the instant case, what was to be seen was on the prime-facie material, the sufficiency

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

purchased the property\nbut could not sale during the year under consideration.\n2. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and specific issue relating to 'High liabilities\nin the form of 250 Loan creditors' was pointed out by Ld. AO which amounts to Rs. 17,02,25,505/-\n3. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings filed

M/S SURAJHBAN OILS PVT.LTD,MORENA vs. ACIT- (CENTRAL CIRCLE), GWALIOR

Appeals is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No. 45/Agr./2022 (Assessment Year 2017-18)

32, Shri Dipanshu Gupta stated as under:- "M/s Rameshwaram Impex, M/s Kashi Impex are the main proprietorship concerns from which exit route of funds is provided to main beneficiaries." From the above confession of Shri Dipanshu Gupta, it is amply evident that the appellant has taken accommodation entry from M/s Kashi Impex in the garb of bogus sales of goods

ITO 1(1)(1)(5), AGRA vs. SHANTI CONSTRUCTIONS , AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaincome Tax Officer, Ward,1(1)(5), Vs.. M/S Shanti Constructions, Ug-13, Aayakar Bhawan, Agra Shanti Madhuvan Plaza, Delhi Gate, Agra (Appellant) (Pan: Aaufs3185N) (Respondent)

bogus advances from customers the ld.CIT(A) deleted such addition by holding that the advances from customers shown by the 4 appellant as on 31.03.2012 were all old balances and no part of it was received during the impugned year and thus, he did not find any reason to support the action of the AO to add this amount