ABC PAPER PRODUCTS,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(1) AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed the claim for reason that no notification\nwas issued by the Central Government in terms of section 105(3) of the Act. Therefore, only\nissue remained for our consideration is whether any notification as provided in section\n105(3) is issued by the Central Government to this effect or not.\n16.3. Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 provides

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

disallowance of 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

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

disallowance of 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

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

Appeal is allowed

disallowance under Section 10(10AA) in processing itself.\nWe thus reverse the learned lower authorities' impugned action\nrejecting the assessee's section 10(10AA) leave encashment\nexemption claimed in above terms. Necessary computation shall\nfollow as per law.\n5. This assessee's appeal is allowed.\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 7th February, 2025\nSd/-\n(M. BALAGANESH)\nACCOUNTANT

KUSHAL VARSHNEY,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 4(1)(3), ALIGARH

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Kushal Varshney, Vs. Ito, 1/83, Naurangabad, Aligarh Ward-4(1)(3), Up 202001 Aligarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aevpv0578H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

section 40A(3) of the L.T. Act. Kushal Varshney 2. Because the purchases made, the disallowance of which has been made u/s 40A(3) of the LT Act are fully verifiable and the identity of the seller is also verifiable and not in doubt and the payment made is under avoidable circumstances. Thus the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 is\nallowed and appeals filed by the Revenue in AYs 2021-22, 2022-23 and\n2023-24 are dismissed

10] [In favour of assessee]\nviii). PCIT Vs M/s Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd. ( 2024) (3) THI\n157-Delhi High Court\nL.\nWe are enclosing herewith our reply to PCIT in response to notice u/s\n263, dated 2nd of July, 2023, in which, we have cited number of case\nlaws that since the order u/s 143(3) was passed after

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

disallowed as per the provisions of section 40A(3) rw.r. 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The appellant Submitted that following purchases have been made in cash from the Cultivators of agricultural products and therefore, these payments are allowable as per the provisions of section 40A(3A) r.w.r. 6DD(e) 7| Page produce was purchased grower producer is placed

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

3) of the Act. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd., v/s. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that AO cannot make any addition on the account of his guess work without having any material evidence on record. 10 | P a g e CIT vs. J.J. Enterprises (2002) 122 Taxman 124 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

3) are safeguards. The said provisions are of practical importance. This reasoning of ours is based on the decision of this Court in Transmission Corporation(supra) in which this Court has observed that the provision of Section 195(2) is a safeguard. From this it follows that where a person responsible for deduction is fairly certain then he can make

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3.\nThe Ld. CIT(A)-V, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in directing the AO to verify\nthe investment of Rs. 89,79,185/- out of total addition of Rs.99,56,944/- made u/s 69B of the\nAct on account of unexplained investment in factory building at Kota

SUMIT KUMAR,AGRA vs. ITO 1(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sumit Kumar, Vs. Ito, Village Rampura, Ward-1(1)(2), Gwalior Road, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Buqpk7461L Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

10,000. Hence the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act per se could not be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Accordingly the disallowance

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

section 40(b) of the 'Act'.” 3. Briefly stated, in the absence of proper books of account maintained by the assessee, which were found to be incomplete without supporting details, stock register, ledger, cash book etc., the Assessing Officer disallowed 10

BLUE LOTUS DEVELOPERS,GWALIOR vs. DCIT 1(1) GWALIOR, GWALIOR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshblue Lotus Developers, Vs. Dcit, 101, The Empire 33 City Circle-1(1), Centre, Thalipur, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaifb4692D Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

disallowance of expenses in the total sum of Rs 6,50,000/- without rejecting the books of accounts of the Assessee under section 145(3) of the Act. The Assessee has also raised certain additional grounds which are purely legal in nature and hence the said additional grounds are hereby admitted as the facts relevant for its adjudication are already

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 95,20,372 under section 68 of the Act, 1961 whereas in the appellant case section 68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

Section 145(3) are not invoked. The addition made by the AO , sustained by the National Faceless Appeal Centre is liable to be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year ,declaring income of Rs.7,89,970/-. Case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny

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)

disallowed the deduction under section 80IC of the Act as excessively claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed

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)

disallowed the deduction under section 80IC of the Act as excessively claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed

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)

disallowed the deduction under section 80IC of the Act as excessively claimed in the sum of Rs 5,65,487/-. Pursuant to the assessment framed, the assessee company did not contest the same by preferring first appeal before the learned Commissioner (appeals). The assessee paid the due taxes in respect of demand raised by the learned AO. The assessee filed