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

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is partly

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

natural justice. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without duly appreciating the partial submissions made by the appellant and without affording a reasonable opportunity for further submission. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in invoking

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

depreciation and passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2017 accordingly. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee miserably failed to file any compliance and neither the assessee nor its AR filed

ABHILASHA CONSTRUCTION,JHANSI vs. JCIT RANGE-6 , JHANSI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Depreciation and deductions under section 40(b) of the Act even after application of profit rate. BECAUSE, the ‘appellant’ denies liability of interest 6. under section 234B of the ‘Act’. 7. BECAUSE, while making and sustaining the assessment the ‘AO’ and ‘CIT(A)’ has made various observations which are contrary to facts on records. ITA 314/Agr/2015 3 8. BECAUSE, assessment

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

natural justice. (15) The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify or substitute any or all the grounds of appeal at any appropriate time.” ITA No.216/Agr/2016, 183/Agr/2014,439/Agr/2015 & ITA No. 177/Agr/2014 4 Grounds “1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Agra, hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)' erred, both in law and on facts, in holding that

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

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

natural justice and therefore, the additions made deserves to be quashed. 5. Perused the records. Heard learned representative for assessee and learned Sr. DR for revenue. 6. Learned representative for assessee has submitted that the assessee's case was selected only for ‘limited scrutiny' to verify the issue “whether contract receipts/fees have been correctly offered to tax”. Further that

SANTLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MAINPURI vs. WARD 2(1)(2) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: :Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

depreciation, made by the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 25.02.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 2. This appeal has been preferred on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessment order ex parte, without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant

M/S GINNI FILAMENTS LTD.,MATHURA vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE-3, MATHURA

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

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

justice.” 2. Effectively ground No. 2(a) to 2(c) pertain to rejection of books of account and estimation of gross profit @ 16% as against 13.96% disclosed by the assessee. 3. Apropos these grounds ld. AR for the assessee has drawn our attention to page 7 of the assessment order to the following effect : Perusal of above mentioned table reveals

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

natural justice. The ‘appellant’ reserves his right to add, delete, modify, alter or substitute any or all the grounds of appeal. 3 I.T.A No. 331/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) 2. Vide Grounds No. 1 to 4 assessee has challenged the action of the authorities below in making trading addition by application of N.P rate @8% on contract receipts ignoring

RISHAV SHELTERS P LTD,AGRA vs. JCIT RANGE-4 , AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the

justice and deserves to be cancelled. Ground No. 2 (i) Because the Ld. ClT(Appeals) has wrongly, illegally and arbitrarily confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. (ii) Because considering the facts of the case and the legal position the invoking

AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

Nature of asset Machinery sold 31,17,40,000 Non Depreciable 31,17,40,000 3,97,60,000 10,00,000 4,07,60,000 Depreciable Assets 10,00,000 35,25,00,000| B1,17,40,000 3,97,60,000 Total I.T.A No. 54/AGR/2021 12 On Condonation of Delay (Ground No.1) For the disposal of Ground No.1

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

depreciation." 6. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is perverse to the facts." 7. "Any other ground that may be adduced at the time of hearing." 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Private Limited Company, registered under the provisions of The Companies

ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA vs. SHOBHA RAM SHARMA CONTRACTOR, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

justice has observed that “The taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial. In doing so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax legitimately due form an appellant should remain un-recovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might

ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA vs. SHOBHA RAM SHARMA CONTRACTOR, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

justice has observed that “The taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial. In doing so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner. Although it is a part of their duty to ensure that no tax legitimately due form an appellant should remain un-recovered, they must also at the same time not act in a manner as might