ACIT CIRCLE-2(1), GWALIOR vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, GWALIOR

Appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.16/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Acit - Circle-2 बनाम/ F-11, Harishankar Puram Gwalior Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Circle-2 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta बनाम/ Gwalior F-11, Harishankar Puram Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

unexplained payments by the assessee, the source of which could not be explained by the assessee. All these sums aggregated to Rs.427.02 Lacs which were added to the income of the assessee considering the assessee’s statement as recorded u/s 132(4) during search. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A), having considered assessee’s elaborate written submissions, rendered its finding

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA,GWALIOR vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

Appeal stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.16/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta Acit - Circle-2 बनाम/ F-11, Harishankar Puram Gwalior Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Circle-2 Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta बनाम/ Gwalior F-11, Harishankar Puram Vs. Gwalior 474 002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No. Aclpg-8972-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anurag Sinha (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain (Cit) – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025

unexplained payments by the assessee, the source of which could not be explained by the assessee. All these sums aggregated to Rs.427.02 Lacs which were added to the income of the assessee considering the assessee’s statement as recorded u/s 132(4) during search. 2.2 The Ld. CIT(A), having considered assessee’s elaborate written submissions, rendered its finding

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

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

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

unexplained deposits in the bank accounts u/s 69. The disallowance is wholly illegal. The same may kindly be directed to be deleted. (14) .Because The CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition Rs 46,05,670/- in respect of non production of vouchers. The appellant has never denied the availability of vouchers in respect