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

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

124 of the IT Act 1961. 4. Because the Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the provisions of Sec 145(3) of IT Act 1961 are applicable to the appellant. 5. Because the Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the recaseted net loss of Rs 4,70, 12,656. 6. Because the Ld CIT(Appeals) has erred

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)

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41,98,630/-. Subsequently