JAGVIR SINGH KUNTAL,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

section 69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has deposited total cash of Rs.50.12 lakhs in the bank account during the year under consideration and from 01.04.2016 till 08.11.2016, total cash of Rs.34,22,200/- was deposited by the assessee in the bank account and during the period 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017, assessee has deposited cash

ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

44, Mahaveer Market, Ward-1(1)(3), Chhipitola, Vs. Agra. Uttar Pradesh-282001 PAN-ABEFA5459J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. and Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department by Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The following grounds have been raised: “1. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly and illegally confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(l)(c) of the I. T. Act. 2. Because the assessee duly discharged her onus of proving the cash credits to be genuine. The addition

SH. JUGENDRA SINGH YADAV,AGRA vs. ACIT, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

condone the nominal delay of 10 days occurred in filing the appeals, as there was reasonable cause, which prevented the assessee to file the same within the period of limitation. 3. The brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a civil contractor engaged in executing works contract for Agra Development Authority, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority