MR. TASAVVER HUSAIN,FARRUKHABAD vs. ACIT, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

income and has disclosed all the facts material to the addition or disallowance; (d) the amount of under-reported income

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SUNIL KUMAR MITTAL & MAMTA MITTAL, MORENA

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

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

income ( on protective basis).” 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,99,59,467/- on account of disallowance

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2,, AGRA vs. M/S SAKSHI TAIRI & CHHAYA BATTAD, MORENA

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

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

income ( on protective basis).” 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,99,59,467/- on account of disallowance

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S RAKESH SHIVHARE & NISHA MITTAL, MORENA

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

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

income ( on protective basis).” 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,99,59,467/- on account of disallowance

A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S SHYAM SUNDER & MANISH TAORI, MORENA

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

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

income ( on protective basis).” 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,99,59,467/- on account of disallowance

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR vs. M/S VANDANA JAIN & RAMA BANSAL, MORENA

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

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

income ( on protective basis).” 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,99,59,467/- on account of disallowance

SUBODH GUPTA,AGRA vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2022-23 Subodh Gupta Vs. Ito, 71, Saket Colony Shahganj Agra Ward 1(1)(2), Agra Agra Pan : Adqfs4617N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prarthna Jalaan, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

income, resulting in specific disallowances. Additions to the assessed income included Rs. 12 lakh for remuneration claimed without supporting partnership

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

addition of Rs 3,58,61,640/- being the excess shown in the 'income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

addition of Rs 3,58,61,640/- being the excess shown in the 'income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

addition of Rs 3,58,61,640/- being the excess shown in the 'income and expenditure' account. The authorities below have erroneously disallowed

CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LTD,AGRA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, all appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and cross- objection is dismissed as infructuous

additions sustained by ld. CIT(A) on account of sundry creditors during the current year 3 I.T.A No. 412 & 437/Agra/2018 C.O. 64 I.T.A No. 412/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) amounting to Rs.49,72,098/- which includes the amounts which are already disallowed as part of expenses in computation of income

SINGH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MORENA vs. WARD 1, MORENA

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

income at Rs.152.63 Lacs after various additions / disallowances under the head ‘business income' and 'income from other sources'. Similar assessment

SINGH INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MORENA vs. JCIT RANGE, GWALIOR

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.15/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.14/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Singh Industries Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, Range-2 बनाम/ Plot No. Q-2, Ab Road Industrial Area City Center, Gwalior Vs. Morena – 476 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakcs-5297-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-02-2025

income at Rs.152.63 Lacs after various additions / disallowances under the head ‘business income’ and ‘income from other sources’. Similar assessment

SAURABH SAHU,JHANSI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, JHANSI

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

income of Rs.32.25 Lacs. The addition was made for unsecured loans, additions in capital account, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) and disallowance

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

addition of Rs.47,34,000/- being interest income from FDRs under the head other income after validly reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Act. He contended that since the AO did not examine the issue of interest from FDR’s in the original assessment so he has rightly opened the assessment.In support, he placed reliance in the following case laws

SH RANJEET KUMAR SHARMA ,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

income of Rs.3,04,818/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS and after considering the submissions made and addition of Rs.12,16,500/- made u/s 69A of the Act on account of cash deposited during demonetization period. The Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.6,00,000/- by disallowing

ANURAG MITTAL ,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

income returned in absence of any material corresponding to the additions made having been found during the course of search. 2. BECAUSE, on due consideration of facts and in the overall circumstances of the case the Ld ‘CIT(A)’ had fallen in error both on facts and in law in sustaining disallowance

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

addition of Rs. 9,94,137/- made on this account is hereby confirmed. Assessee in Ground No. 7(d) has also raised the issue of allowing depreciation, interest paid to bank and third parties borrowings. But once the books of accounts are rejected and income is estimated at 8% of gross receipts by drawing parallel from section 44AD, then