SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

70,000/- on 14.12.2011, Rs. 50,000/-on 15.12.2011, Rs. 60,000/- on 21.12.2011 were deposited in cash into the bank account but the source of the cash deposits was not examined by the DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Agra despite the fact that queries had been raised for explaining the source of all the cash deposits made during

RADHA GUPTA,KALA MAHAL, AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1)(3), , AGRA

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

3. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2 | P a g e 4. It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have made section 69A addition of Rs.1,51,04,500/- in assessee’s hands thereby rejecting her explanation attributing the deposits

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

70,347/-\nLearned AR has referred order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Jaipur Bench of\nthe Tribunal in ITA No. 902/JPR/2024, Suchita Bhatia V. the DCIT in support\nof his arguments, praying to delete the addition and quash the impugned\norder.\n7. Learned Sr. DR for the revenue has submitted that assessee did neither\nsubmit any documentary evidence before the Assessing

GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

capital gains, arising out of sale of properties to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The only issue under dispute during the assessment year was with respect to the outstanding trade payable liability of Rs.34,45,60,149/- in respect of 119 parties out 257 sundry creditors. It appears from the perusal of assessment order and the impugned first appellate