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

5 and 9. This reasoning flows from the words “sum chargeable under the provisions of the Act” in Section 195(1). The fact that the Revenue has not obtained any information per se cannot be a ground to construe Section 195 widely so as to require deduction of TAS even in a case where an amount paid is not chargeable

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

disallowance of exemption of Rs. 95,20,372 being the long term capital gain arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. Under section 10(38) of I.T.Act, 1961. 5

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% of the expenses incurred by the assessee on purchase of material, labour expenses, repair and maintenance, establishment, selling

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10,29,003/- by disallowing the exemption is based on incorrect\ninterpretation of the Act accordingly the same is directed to be deleted.\"\n17. Regarding the judgement of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Agra in the case of Jagdish\nArora as relied upon by the Revenue, we find that the said judgement pertained to AY 2010-\n11 when the RFCTLARR

GRAM VIKAS KALYAN SANSTHAN,MATHURA vs. I.T.O. (TDS), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhgram Vikas Kalyan Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), Nagla Aklha, Sonkh – Goverdhan Road, Agra. Mathura – 281 123 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaatg3272E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shalenndra Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

5 appellant should have deducted the tax at source as per provisions of section 191C of the income tax act at the time crediting the said payments to the account of Contractees, which it has failed to do. Thus the appellant is treated as appellant in defaults amounting to Rs.7,50,231/-for not deducting TDS under section 194C

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

disallowance of 51,282/- being 15% of office and travelling expenses on ad hoc basis, without appreciating the business necessity and absence of any finding of personal use. 9. BECAUSE, the additions/disallowances made are arbitrary, excessive and without proper appreciation of facts and evidence placed on record. 10. BECAUSE, the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271AAC and 270A have been

KISHOR KUMAR GARG,JOURA ROAD, MORENA vs. ACIT, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkishor Kumar Garg, Vs. Acit, Joura Road, Morena, Gwalior, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acopg5428J Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

10% disallowance thereon Rs. 1,29,589/- 5. The ld AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for this disallowance on the ground that assessee had under reported and mis- reported his income. It is pertinent to note that the ld AO while making the aforesaid disallowance in the quantum proceedings had not rejected the books of account

M/S SATYAM SOLUTIONS LTD,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT1(1), , GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowance of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Subsequently, the assessee filed an application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking recall of the said order dated

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

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

section 139(1) was not fatal to claim for foreign tax credit - Whether Assessing Officer was to be directed to give credit for foreign tax as per Form No. 67 filed before Commissioner (Appeals) Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of assessee] * Ritesh Kumar Garg Vs ITO in ITA No. 261/JP/2022 dated 15/09/2022 - ITAT Jaipur Bench held that

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

KANHA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GWALIOR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

disallowed assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act for want of registration under sections quoted hereinabove. In the instant case, the assessee seems to have exercised his option to claim exemption only u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and not under section 11 of the Act. CPC, Bangalore has not raised any question

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

PEHAL,CHHATARPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), GWALIOR

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

Bench: SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR (Accountant Member)

disallowed. Assessee did not comply with the notice(s), which led to denial of deduction u/s. 11 of the Act by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.5,83,244/- claimed by the assessee vide re-assessment order dated 27.03.2015 framed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144/147 of the 1961 Act. 5. Assessee filed first appeal with