VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

deduction under section 80IC of the Act as it cannot be construed as profits derived from the eligible unit. Accordingly, the learned AO disallowed

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

deduction under section 80IC of the Act as it cannot be construed as profits derived from the eligible unit. Accordingly, the learned AO disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

deduction of tax at source, was disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act and added to the income of the assessee

JAGDISH CHANDRA CHATURVEDI,KASGANJ vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4(3)(3), KASGANJ , KASGANJ

Appeal is allowed

disallowance of deduction and addition of income as\nper Form 26AS etc. than the issue before us involving the\ninterpretation

ALIGARH BANK EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,ALIGARH vs. J.A.O,W-4(1)(4),, ALIGARH

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

deduction u/s 80P for Rs.41.90 Lacs which was denied by CPC solely on the ground that the return was not filed within due date. The assessee stated that the return was filed on 28-09-2019 which was well within extended due date. The Ld. CIT(A) concurred with the same. However, Ld. CIT(A) went ahead to disallow

PRAGATI SINGH,GWALIOR vs. CIT, AAYKAR BHAVAN GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year:2013-14

disallowance to only 30% of Rs.2,74,978 as amended in section 40(a)(ia) is illegal, unjustified and bad in law.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.2,74,978/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction

GIRDHARI LAL KEDAR NATH SINGHAL,AGRA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmangirdhari Lal Kedar Nath Singhal, Vs. Ito 1 (1)(1), Ff – 1, Bhagwati Complex, Agra. M.G. Road, Opp. Shah Cinema, Agra – 282 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aacfg5458N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 03.09.2025

disallowed a part of amount of deduction claimed u/s 80G to the extent of Rs.19,786/- and disallowance of indirect

DY C.I.T.-3, MATHURA vs. M/S KOSHDA BUILDCON PVT. LTD., MATHURA

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

disallowing nine expenses claimed as deduction by the appellant company. According to the Assessing Officer, accounting standard AS-7 has not been

SATISH PRAKASH AGARWAL,AGRA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17

disallowing interest expense claimed as deduction in respect of unsecured loans by doubting the genuineness of interest expense more so when

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

disallowance of deduction claimed amounting to Rs.4,11,91,807/- after setting off of unabsorbed depreciation, made by the Assessing

RAVI SINGH,MORAR GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GWALIOR

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.204/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2020-21) Shri Ravi Singh Income-Tax Officer, बनाम/ Nh-44, Gwalior Bye Pass, Ward 2(2), Gwalior. Near Toll Tax, Dongarpur, Vs. Morar (Mp). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apmpg-2567-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. S.C. Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] On 29-11-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 13-09-2022. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Disallowed Deduction U/S 54B For Want Of Any Satisfactory Explanation From The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Assessment For The Same Very Reasons. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Ld. Ar Pleaded For Another Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 119 Days In The Appeal Which Stand Condoned.

disallowed deduction u/s 54B for want of any satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment

MONIKA RATHORE,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, MORENA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2023-24

disallowance. If the adjustment has been made on the basis of first defect i.e., for procedural irregularity then according to the decisions referred by the Id. Counsel for the assessee, this irregularity is not fatal 9 | P a g e enough to deny the claim of deduction

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

deducted in view of the provisions of section 90 of the Act. It was submitted that there was delay in filing form No. 67 which was filed on 18.09.2020. The return of income was processed by Revenue on 20.03.2020 by CPC u/s. 143(1) and the FTC paid by the assessee of Rs.2,82,020/- was disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

deducted by you on payment\nmade to dealers amounting of Rs. 10435000/-. Kindly explain why the same\nshould not be considered as your turnover when you have claimed TDS on the\nentire amount.\nThe above enquiries/queries were not about the issue of contract receipts\nunder limited scrutiny and the disallowance

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

disallowing the deduction of royalty of Rs.4,36,815/- and trade-tax of Rs.43,02,056/- which were allowed while

SHUSHIL KUMAR GAUTAM,GABHANA ALIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

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]

disallowance of deduction claimed at Rs.3,11,134/-. 5. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before

PAWAN KUMAR CHAUHAN,MAINPURI vs. ITO- WARD 2 (5) , AGRA, AGRA

disallowance made of deduction u/s. 80C of the Act of Rs.1,00,000/-\nand direct the Assessing Officer to allow

SATISH NARAYAN SHUKLA,PHAPHUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURAIYA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 54 and 54F amounting to Rs.12,22,705/- made by the Assessing