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)

70,000/-. vii). The assessee had duly recorded purchase transactions in the audited books of accounts. 35 ITA No.251/Agr/2025 and 4 ors. viii). The arrival of ‘live animals’ register have been seized, which proves the purchases made by us are authentic. ix). During the course of assessment proceedings for Asstt. Year 2018-19, Mr. Irfan in his statement recorded

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)

70,000/-. vii). The assessee had duly recorded purchase transactions in the audited books of accounts. 35 ITA No.251/Agr/2025 and 4 ors. viii). The arrival of ‘live animals’ register have been seized, which proves the purchases made by us are authentic. ix). During the course of assessment proceedings for Asstt. Year 2018-19, Mr. Irfan in his statement recorded

ITO EXMP, AGRA vs. HARDAYAL CHARITABLE & EDUCATIONAL TRUST, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the revenue appeals ITA No

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

70,000/- by this Tribunal, vide its order dated 30.06.2025 passed in M.A. No. 06/Agr/2019. The revenue’s appeal, thus, deserves to be disposed off on merit. 8. We notice that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the said addition of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that the appellant trust continues to enjoy the ITO-Exemption CIT (Exemption

HARDAYAL CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST, FIROZABAD vs. ITO (EXP) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, both the revenue appeals ITA No

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

70,000/- by this Tribunal, vide its order dated 30.06.2025 passed in M.A. No. 06/Agr/2019. The revenue’s appeal, thus, deserves to be disposed off on merit. 8. We notice that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the said addition of Rs. 2,30,00,000/- on the ground that the appellant trust continues to enjoy the ITO-Exemption CIT (Exemption

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

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

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

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

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

bogus in nature as the creditworthiness of the creditors was not proved. Thereafter, the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs. 17,02,25,505/- after making addition by holding the unsecured loans as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. Against such order the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order

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

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

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied

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

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, hence AO is correct in law in treating it as "Income from other sources." This ground of the assessee is therefore dismissed. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued before us at length with the support of detailed paper book and synopsis which are placed on record. He submitted that the judgement relied