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)

2, page 10 of CIT(A) order, in which, it was stated that M/s Elahi Trading Co. had made the sales to the tune of Rs. 17,58,46,131/- of Live Animals and he has confirmed his copy of account and it is only on account of one bill, dated 21.12.2918 for Rs. 4,01,172/-, in 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)

2, page 10 of CIT(A) order, in which, it was stated that M/s Elahi Trading Co. had made the sales to the tune of Rs. 17,58,46,131/- of Live Animals and he has confirmed his copy of account and it is only on account of one bill, dated 21.12.2918 for Rs. 4,01,172/-, in which

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

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S FEDERAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2,50,58,565/- has been deleted by the CIT(A). 4. The facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer has made the addition in reassessment completed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) in respect of purchases of ‘Raw Boneless Meat’, which has been treated as bogus

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

ACIT-CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S FEDERAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2,50,58,565/- has been deleted by the CIT(A). 4. The facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer has made the addition in reassessment completed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) in respect of purchases of 'Raw Boneless Meat', which has been treated as bogus

ACIT,CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S FEDERAL AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

2,50,58,565/- has been deleted by the CIT(A). 4. The facts in brief are that the Assessing Officer has made the addition in reassessment completed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) in respect of purchases of 'Raw Boneless Meat', which has been treated as bogus

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

50,000/- In- fact PAN details were required to be taken in the cash sales above Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the provisions of Rule 114B of IT Rules. Thus provisions of law have been violated and to cover the same, the theory of intermediaries is taken recourse of. Therefore it is concluded that the AO has rightly considered

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GWALIOR vs. SWASTIK ROADLINES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

2 raised by Revenue are dismissed. I.T.A No. 146/Agra/2019 6 Ground No.3: 5. With respect to Ground No.3, Ld.DR had submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had upheld the rejection of books of account. For that purposes he has drawn our attention to the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A) at Pgs.19-20 to the following effect: “Ground# 1: Rejection of book

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

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

2 of the assessee is devoid of merit. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The present case, the assessee had not filed return u/s 139(1) of the Act or response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. An information was received by the A.O. during the year under consideration, that

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

2. Assessment of interest income from bank FDR of Rs.2,53,050 under the head income from other sources and resultant double I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 8 addition as being claimed to be shown by the assessee as business income in the business receipts. Brief facts as per record are that the After considering the assessee’s reply

MR. PRAMOD KUMAR KHANDELWAL,AGRA vs. DY.C.I.T.-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

2. Assessment of interest income from bank FDR of Rs.2,53,050 under the head income from other sources and resultant double I.T.A Nos. 200 & 201/Agra/2016 8 addition as being claimed to be shown by the assessee as business income in the business receipts. Brief facts as per record are that the After considering the assessee’s reply

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

50 ITR 1 (SC) that the onus is on the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash credits. 6. In the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More, [1971] 82 ITR 540, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that Section 68 casts the burden of proof on the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor

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)

bogus income. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. By way of appeal effect, the assessee’s income was reduced to 6. Rs.11,87,436/-. Subsequently, the AO received AIR Information that the assessee, during the year, had sold an immovable property, having stamp value of Rs.36,50,000/-. The assessee having, as per the AO, not declared

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)

bogus income. This order is under challenge in the present appeal. By way of appeal effect, the assessee’s income was reduced to 6. Rs.11,87,436/-. Subsequently, the AO received AIR Information that the assessee, during the year, had sold an immovable property, having stamp value of Rs.36,50,000/-. The assessee having, as per the AO, not declared

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

2. In this case, return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 was filed on 29.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 4,86,270/-. Subsequently, the case was taken up for I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018 3 & S.A. No.06/Agra/2018 (in I.T.A No. 349/Agra/2018) scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.1

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Kumar Jain Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 30/41, Chhipitola Ward-1 (1)(1), Agra Agra Pan :Aarpj3189L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gaurav Goyal , Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 Order

bogus in nature. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. NFAC and filed a detailed submission. After considering the detailed submissions, the ld. CIT(Appeals) sustained the addition made the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before ITAT, raising following grounds: 3 | P a g e 1. That the Learned

SHRI SRIDHAR PANDEY S/O,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

bogus person. In fact the AO had conducted inquiries from him regarding the diary , which he had completely denied having anything to do with.Reading the contents of the diary as a whole and noting the fact that the diary was in the name of MrAlok Tiwari,theLd.CIT(A), we hold, has wrongly applied the presumption provided in section

SH. SRIDHAR PANDEY,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

bogus person. In fact the AO had conducted inquiries from him regarding the diary , which he had completely denied having anything to do with.Reading the contents of the diary as a whole and noting the fact that the diary was in the name of MrAlok Tiwari,theLd.CIT(A), we hold, has wrongly applied the presumption provided in section