HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

cash deposit of Rs. 12,97,291/- (3,30,471 + 9,66,820) in Union Bank of India SB A/c No. 2969 as it is a settled law that Bank Pass Book is not Books of Accounts hence the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), is wrong, illegal and against the peculiar facts and law of the case. I.T.A

MAHAMAYA BOORA UDYOG,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(2), 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.6/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mahamaya Boora Udyog Ito Ward 2(1)(2) बनाम/ 15/469, Kali Bari Road Agra Vs. Noori Darwaja, Agra – 282 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaxfm-1475-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Gaurav Goyal (Ca) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-02-2025

cash deposited during demonetization period was to be considered as normal business receipts and similar rate of 8% would apply on the same. 4. On the rate of profit, the assessee furnished comparative chart which is extracted on Page No.14 of the impugned order. It could be seen that the assessee reflected net profit before depreciation

MOHD SAGIR,ALIGARH vs. ACIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal for the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Depreciation of Rs.5,55,0000/- III. Cash deposits during the demonetization period Rs.2,07,00,000/- 4. Aggrieved with the said

SH. SACHIN ARORA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O.-3(4), MATHURA

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

deposits, the assessee gave explanation pertaining to his trading activities. The assessee also stated that the record in respect of its trading activities was lost, for which, an FIR was also lodged with the police authorities at Mathura. When confronted by the AO that the claim of the assessee was not duly substantiated, the assessee, vide order sheet entry dated

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed by this

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

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

depreciation claimed on fixed assets. In first appeal preferred against the above said assessment order dated 31.03.2016, learned CIT(A) vide order dated 25.06.2025 affirmed the rejection of accounts and sustained the addition made by AO on account of low profit rate. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal in ITA No.342/Agr/2025 before the ITAT, which has been partly allowed by this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

cash credit account (working capital loan) is concerned, the interest amount is automatically debited to the account of the borrower, it is not required to be paid separately. As far as Section 43B is concerned, the interest payment to Banks are allowable on the basis of actual payment. In the present case the same was not paid, thus treatment

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

depreciation, interest paid to bank and third parties on borrowings for the purposes of business, more so in the light of the circular of CBDT and various authoritative decisions on such issue cited by the assessee. c) in view of settled law income from interest on fixed deposits which have been furnished as security in terms of contract should have

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

depreciation, interest paid to bank and third parties on borrowings for the purposes of business, more so in the light of the circular of CBDT and various authoritative decisions on such issue cited by the assessee. c) in view of settled law income from interest on fixed deposits which have been furnished as security in terms of contract should have

SHRI OM PRAKASH SINGH,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

depreciation and interest paid. Thus, ground of appeal No.1 to 4 is partly allowed. 11. Vide Ground of Appeal No. 5, assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act. The laerned Assessing officer has made the addition on account of his finding 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

depreciation thereon is wholly illegal. The addition is wholly illegal which may kindly be directed to be deleted. 28. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 5,91,907/- out of Rs 17,57,752/- made by the assessing officer under the head "expenditure overstated". The supporting evidence

A.C.I.T.-4(1), AGRA vs. M/S ROGER INDUSTRIES LTD., AGRA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

cash requirements. By virtue of offering personal guarantee and collateral security for the benefit of the company, the liquidity position of the assessee had gone down. In the strict sense if it is to be construed the amount forwarded by the company to the assessee was not in the shape of advances or loans. The arrangement between the assessee