DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA vs. ALNOOR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

10. We have heard the ld DR and perused the materials available on record. The ld AO noticed that Assessee had paid interest to the related parties mentioned under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act totaling to Rs. 14,31,847/- on the outstanding loans which are tabulated as under:- S. No. Name PAN Rate of interest Amount

PRAMOD KUMAR DUBEY,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,1(3), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

10,000 Income from long-term capital gains - Rs. 99,677 Income from short-term capital gains - Rs.169,324 Income from other sources - Rs. 48,263 4. The assessee opted for new regime of taxation. As the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration did not exceed Rs. 7 lakhs, the assessee was eligible for tax rebate

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

10,240/- and confirmed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) (NFAC) under the head of Discount/claim/shortage/deduction on proportionate basis in compression of last year without applied his mind but only on presumption, surmises and without any basis which is against principle of natural justice and unsustainable in law, Please be deleted. 2 That under the facts and circumstances of the case

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

disallow such claim for deduction. Similarly, vide Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008 sub- Section (6) has been inserted in Section 195 which requires the payer to furnish information relating to payment of any sum in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Board. This provision is brought into force only from 1.4.2008. It will not apply

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

10,95,293/- was claimed u/s. 90 of the Act as tax relief, as the total global income was declared by the assessee in return of income filed in India with Revenue. There was tax deducted on dividend earned from USA to the tune of Rs.604/- apart from tax deducted by Google Germany on salary earned in Germany from

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)

10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed a particular claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on certain items. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance

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)

10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed a particular claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on certain items. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance

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)

10. On merits, we find that the Learned AO had merely disallowed a particular claim of deduction under section 80IC of the Act on certain items. Hence there cannot be any levy of penalty on disallowance of a claim of deduction. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance

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

disallowance of Rs. 34,38,533/ made by the Ld. Assessing Officer even when the entire amount of interest expense on unsecured loans was allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 since the unsecured loans were utilized for making investment in the partnership firm from where income in the form of interest

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed the expenditure on adhoc basis. 10. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 11. Considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. 12. We observe that with regard to the cash deposits by the assessee during demonetization period on 10.11.2016 of Rs.1.00 crore, the 6 | P a g e Assessing

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

section 40A(3) of the Act as the payments exceeding Rs.10,000/- in a day had been made to these persons. Accordingly, the Ground No. 1.1 and 1.2 are dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before ITAT raising various argumentative grounds of appeal, which is not as per the ITAT Rules. However, single grievance of the assessee is disallowance

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

disallowance FTC in case of delay filing of form 67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.” 9. In the light of foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that filing of Form 67 is a directory not mandatory and violation of procedural

SH SANJAY BANSAL ,MORENA vs. A.C.I.T (CENTRAL), GWALIOR

In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed

Bench: learned CIT(Appeals) who has very exhaustively passed the impugned order in 60 pages and considered all the submissions of the assessee in the tabulated form and otherwise, which need not to be repeated again for the sake of brevity. However, learned CIT(Appeals) partly allowed assessee's appeal confirming the addition only to the extent of Rs.71,44,045/- as against addition of Rs.91,06,669/-. 4. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds : "1.Because in any view, th

10 Sikarwar 2980/ 17284/ 11 HarishankarParashar Arhar 5.80 18.12.2011 11 2980/ Arhar 6.00 17880/ Rakesh Jadaon 12 18.12.2011 12 2980/ 20 59600/ Total: 2980/ 42018/- 30.12.201l1 13 Arhar 14.10 Rakesh Singh Parmar 13 20.20 2980/ Girraj Sharma Arhar 60196/- 30.12.2011 14 Kamlesh Agrawal Arhar 22.40 2980/- 66752/ 15 30.12.2011 13 2980/ S6.70 168966/ Total: Bajra

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

13 lakh as\nloans from six persons.\nAssessing Officer noted\nthat Immediately before\namounts were lent to\nthe assessee,\nidentical\namounts were deposited\nin bank accounts of sald\npersons. Assessee could\nproduce only one lender\nfor\nexamination.\nAssessing Officer found\nthat lenders had no\ncreditworthiness give\nloan as they had very\nsmall bank balances and\nwere earning small\nincome

MANISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), JHANSI

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manish Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1882, Shivaji Nagar, Jhansic Ward-2(3)(2), 284001 Jhansi 284 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Akkpc5294Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

10,175 without substantiating or establishing the nature of impugned receipts of Rs. 13,00,000 during the AY 2017-18 and why provisions of 44AD of the Act be not applicable on such receipts as well. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order passed by the AO without considering

ANIL KUMAR,ETAH vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(1), ETAH

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on a preset mind, without any independent application of mind or without extraction of the taxable income. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts to uphold the impugned order passed by the learned Assessing Officer even when the assessing officer acted

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

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

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class

SOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GWALIOR

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed in above terms

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

disallowing expenditure u/s. 11 & 12 ofthe Act is upheld particularly because of the fact that as per section 119(2)(b) of theAct the CIT(A) is not authorized to admit application or claim of exemption which saysthat “ the Board may, if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoidinggenuine hardship in any case or class